journal paper research article

Trending Articles

• Blood Biomarkers to Detect Alzheimer Disease in Primary Care and Secondary Care. Palmqvist S, et al. JAMA. 2024. PMID: 39068545
• RNA Helicase DDX5 Maintains Cardiac Function by Regulating CamkIIδ Alternative Splicing. Jia K, et al. Circulation. 2024. PMID: 39056171
• CAR T cell combination therapies to treat cancer. Uslu U, et al. Cancer Cell. 2024. PMID: 39059390
• Innate immune memory after brain injury drives inflammatory cardiac dysfunction. Simats A, et al. Cell. 2024. PMID: 39043180
• Microglia rescue neurons from aggregate-induced neuronal dysfunction and death through tunneling nanotubes. Scheiblich H, et al. Neuron. 2024. PMID: 39059388

Latest Literature

• Cancer Res (4)
• Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1)
• J Biol Chem (1)
• J Exp Med (1)
• J Immunol (3)
• Nucleic Acids Res (3)

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.

Discover the world's scientific knowledge

With 160+ million publication pages, 25+ million researchers and 1+ million questions, this is where everyone can access science.

You can use AND, OR, NOT, "" and () to specify your search.

• Consent preferences

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• French Abstracts
• Portuguese Abstracts
• Spanish Abstracts
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Journal for Quality in Health Care
• About the International Society for Quality in Health Care
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Contact ISQua
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Primacy of the research question, structure of the paper, writing a research article: advice to beginners.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Thomas V. Perneger, Patricia M. Hudelson, Writing a research article: advice to beginners, International Journal for Quality in Health Care , Volume 16, Issue 3, June 2004, Pages 191–192, https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzh053

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Writing research papers does not come naturally to most of us. The typical research paper is a highly codified rhetorical form [ 1 , 2 ]. Knowledge of the rules—some explicit, others implied—goes a long way toward writing a paper that will get accepted in a peer-reviewed journal.

A good research paper addresses a specific research question. The research question—or study objective or main research hypothesis—is the central organizing principle of the paper. Whatever relates to the research question belongs in the paper; the rest doesn’t. This is perhaps obvious when the paper reports on a well planned research project. However, in applied domains such as quality improvement, some papers are written based on projects that were undertaken for operational reasons, and not with the primary aim of producing new knowledge. In such cases, authors should define the main research question a posteriori and design the paper around it.

Generally, only one main research question should be addressed in a paper (secondary but related questions are allowed). If a project allows you to explore several distinct research questions, write several papers. For instance, if you measured the impact of obtaining written consent on patient satisfaction at a specialized clinic using a newly developed questionnaire, you may want to write one paper on the questionnaire development and validation, and another on the impact of the intervention. The idea is not to split results into ‘least publishable units’, a practice that is rightly decried, but rather into ‘optimally publishable units’.

What is a good research question? The key attributes are: (i) specificity; (ii) originality or novelty; and (iii) general relevance to a broad scientific community. The research question should be precise and not merely identify a general area of inquiry. It can often (but not always) be expressed in terms of a possible association between X and Y in a population Z, for example ‘we examined whether providing patients about to be discharged from the hospital with written information about their medications would improve their compliance with the treatment 1 month later’. A study does not necessarily have to break completely new ground, but it should extend previous knowledge in a useful way, or alternatively refute existing knowledge. Finally, the question should be of interest to others who work in the same scientific area. The latter requirement is more challenging for those who work in applied science than for basic scientists. While it may safely be assumed that the human genome is the same worldwide, whether the results of a local quality improvement project have wider relevance requires careful consideration and argument.

Once the research question is clearly defined, writing the paper becomes considerably easier. The paper will ask the question, then answer it. The key to successful scientific writing is getting the structure of the paper right. The basic structure of a typical research paper is the sequence of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (sometimes abbreviated as IMRAD). Each section addresses a different objective. The authors state: (i) the problem they intend to address—in other terms, the research question—in the Introduction; (ii) what they did to answer the question in the Methods section; (iii) what they observed in the Results section; and (iv) what they think the results mean in the Discussion.

In turn, each basic section addresses several topics, and may be divided into subsections (Table 1 ). In the Introduction, the authors should explain the rationale and background to the study. What is the research question, and why is it important to ask it? While it is neither necessary nor desirable to provide a full-blown review of the literature as a prelude to the study, it is helpful to situate the study within some larger field of enquiry. The research question should always be spelled out, and not merely left for the reader to guess.

Typical structure of a research paper

The Methods section should provide the readers with sufficient detail about the study methods to be able to reproduce the study if so desired. Thus, this section should be specific, concrete, technical, and fairly detailed. The study setting, the sampling strategy used, instruments, data collection methods, and analysis strategies should be described. In the case of qualitative research studies, it is also useful to tell the reader which research tradition the study utilizes and to link the choice of methodological strategies with the research goals [ 3 ].

The Results section is typically fairly straightforward and factual. All results that relate to the research question should be given in detail, including simple counts and percentages. Resist the temptation to demonstrate analytic ability and the richness of the dataset by providing numerous tables of non-essential results.

The Discussion section allows the most freedom. This is why the Discussion is the most difficult to write, and is often the weakest part of a paper. Structured Discussion sections have been proposed by some journal editors [ 4 ]. While strict adherence to such rules may not be necessary, following a plan such as that proposed in Table 1 may help the novice writer stay on track.

References should be used wisely. Key assertions should be referenced, as well as the methods and instruments used. However, unless the paper is a comprehensive review of a topic, there is no need to be exhaustive. Also, references to unpublished work, to documents in the grey literature (technical reports), or to any source that the reader will have difficulty finding or understanding should be avoided.

Having the structure of the paper in place is a good start. However, there are many details that have to be attended to while writing. An obvious recommendation is to read, and follow, the instructions to authors published by the journal (typically found on the journal’s website). Another concerns non-native writers of English: do have a native speaker edit the manuscript. A paper usually goes through several drafts before it is submitted. When revising a paper, it is useful to keep an eye out for the most common mistakes (Table 2 ). If you avoid all those, your paper should be in good shape.

Common mistakes seen in manuscripts submitted to this journal

Huth EJ . How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences , 2nd edition. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1990 .

Browner WS . Publishing and Presenting Clinical Research . Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1999 .

Devers KJ , Frankel RM. Getting qualitative research published. Educ Health 2001 ; 14 : 109 –117.

Docherty M , Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. Br Med J 1999 ; 318 : 1224 –1225.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-3677
• Print ISSN 1353-4505
• Copyright © 2024 International Society for Quality in Health Care and Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Finding and Reading Journal Articles

• Journal Articles: Why You Use Them

Why are articles so important to research?

• Subject Databases: Organizing Research Conversations
• Databases We Recommend For You
• Sources in the Disciplines
• Reading in the Disciplines

Journal articles are the academic's stock in trade, t he basic means of communicating research findings to an audience of one’s peers. That holds true across the disciplinary spectrum, so no matter where you land as a concentrator, you can expect to rely on them heavily. 

Regardless of the discipline, moreover,  journal articles perform an important knowledge-updating function .

Textbooks and handbooks and manuals will have a secondary function for chemists and physicists and biologists, of course. But in the sciences, articles are the standard and  preferred publication form. 

In the social sciences and humanities , where knowledge develops a little less rapidly or is driven less by issues of time-sensitivity , journal articles and books are more often used together.

Not all important and influential ideas warrant book-length studies, and some inquiry is just better suited to the size and scope and concentrated discussion that the article format offers.

Journal articles sometimes just present the most  appropriate  solution for communicating findings or making a convincing argument.  A 20-page article may perfectly fit a researcher's needs.  Sustaining that argument for 200 pages might be unnecessary -- or impossible.

The quality of a research article and the legitimacy of its findings are verified by other scholars, prior to publication, through a rigorous evaluation method called peer-review . This seal of approval by other scholars doesn't mean that an article is the best, or truest, or last word on a topic. If that were the case, research on lots of things would cease. Peer review simply means other experts believe the methods, the evidence, the conclusions of an article have met important standards of legitimacy, reliability, and intellectual honesty.

Searching the journal literature is part of being a responsible researcher at any level: professor, grad student, concentrator, first-year. Knowing why academic articles matter will help you make good decisions about what you find -- and what you choose to rely on in your work.

Think of journal articles as the way you tap into the ongoing scholarly conversation , as a way of testing the currency of  a finding, analysis, or argumentative position, and a way of bolstering the authority (or plausibility) of explanations you'll offer in the papers and projects you'll complete at Harvard. 

• Next: Subject Databases: Organizing Research Conversations >>

Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , which allows anyone to share and adapt our material as long as proper attribution is given. For details and exceptions, see the Harvard Library Copyright Policy ©2021 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.

• Mission and history
• Platform features
• Library Advisory Group
• What’s in JSTOR
• For Librarians
• For Publishers

Open and free content on JSTOR and Artstor

Our partnerships with libraries and publishers help us make content discoverable and freely accessible worldwide

Search open content on JSTOR

Explore our growing collection of Open Access journals

Early Journal Content , articles published prior to the last 95 years in the United States, or prior to the last 143 years if initially published internationally, are freely available to all

Even more content is available when you register to read – millions of articles from nearly 2,000 journals

Thousands of Open Access ebooks are available from top scholarly publishers, including Brill, Cornell University Press, University College of London, and University of California Press – at no cost to libraries or users.

This includes Open Access titles in Spanish:

• Collaboration with El Colegio de México
• Partnership with the Latin American Council of Social Sciences

Images and media

JSTOR hosts a growing number of public collections , including Artstor’s Open Access collections , from museums, archives, libraries, and scholars worldwide.

Research reports

A curated set of more than 34,000 research reports from more than 140 policy institutes selected with faculty, librarian, and expert input.

Resources for librarians

Open content title lists:

• Open Access Journals (xlsx)
• Open Access Books (xlsx)
• JSTOR Early Journal Content (txt)
• Research Reports

Open Access ebook resources for librarians

Library-supported collections

Shared Collections : We have a growing corpus of digital special collections published on JSTOR by our institutional partners.

Reveal Digital : A collaboration with libraries to fund, source, digitize and publish open access primary source collections from under-represented voices.

JSTOR Daily

JSTOR Daily is an online publication that contextualizes current events with scholarship. All of our stories contain links to publicly accessible research on JSTOR. We’re proud to publish articles based in fact and grounded by careful research and to provide free access to that research for all of our readers.

• 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

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

• Open access
• Published: 30 April 2020
• Volume 36 , pages 909–913, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Clara Busse   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-1000 1 &
• Ella August   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-1036 1 , 2  

279k Accesses

15 Citations

709 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

How to Choose the Right Journal

The Point Is…to Publish?

Writing Skills

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

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 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

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 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

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 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

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 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

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. 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

Data Availability

Michalek AM (2014) Down the rabbit hole…advice to reviewers. J Cancer Educ 29:4–5

Article   Google Scholar  

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/defining-the-role-of-authosrs-and-contributors.html . Accessed 15 January, 2020

Vetto JT (2014) Short and sweet: a short course on concise medical writing. J Cancer Educ 29(1):194–195

Brett M, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS ComputBiol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619

Lang TA (2017) Writing a better research article. J Public Health Emerg. https://doi.org/10.21037/jphe.2017.11.06

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Clara Busse & Ella August

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

Ella August

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ella August .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

(PDF 362 kb)

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

Busse, C., August, E. How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal. J Canc Educ 36 , 909–913 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Download citation

Published : 30 April 2020

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

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

• Manuscripts
• Scientific writing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Writing a Research Paper for an Academic Journal: A Five-step Recipe for Perfection

The answer to writing the perfect research paper is as simple as following a step-by-step recipe. Here we bring to you a recipe for effortlessly planning, writing, and publishing your paper as a peer reviewed journal article.

Updated on March 15, 2022

As a young researcher, getting your paper published as a journal article is a huge milestone; but producing it may seem like climbing a mountain compared to, perhaps, the theses, essays, or conference papers you have produced in the past.

You may feel overwhelmed with the thought of carrying innumerable equipment and may feel incapable of completing the task. But, in reality, the answer to writing the perfect research paper is as simple as following a recipe with step-by-step instructions.

In this blog, I aim to bring to you the recipe for effortlessly planning, writing, and publishing your paper as a peer reviewed journal article. I will give you the essential information, key points, and resources to keep in mind before you begin the writing process for your research papers.

Secret ingredient 1: Make notes before you begin the writing process

Because I want you to benefit from this article on a personal level, I am going to give away my secret ingredient for producing a good research paper right at the beginning. The one thing that helps me write literally anything is — cue the drum rolls — making notes.

Yes, making notes is the best way to remember and store all that information, which is definitely going to help you throughout the process of writing your paper. So, please pick up a pen and start making notes for writing your research paper.

Step 1. Choose the right research topic

Although it is important to be passionate and curious about your research article topic, it is not enough. Sometimes the sheer excitement of having an idea may take away your ability to focus on and question the novelty, credibility, and potential impact of your research topic.

On the contrary, the first thing that you should do when you write a journal paper is question the novelty, credibility, and potential impact of your research question.

It is also important to remember that your research, along with the aforementioned points, must be original and relevant: It must benefit and interest the scientific community.

All you have to do is perform a thorough literature search in your research field and have a look at what is currently going on in the field of your topic of interest. This step in academic writing is not as daunting as it may seem and, in fact, is quite beneficial for the following reasons:

• You can determine what is already known about the research topic and the gaps that exist.
• You can determine the credibility and novelty of your research question by comparing it with previously published papers.
• If your research question has already been studied or answered before your first draft, you first save a substantial amount of time by avoiding rejections from journals at a much later stage; and second, you can study and aim to bridge the gaps of previous studies, perhaps, by using a different methodology or a bigger sample size.

So, carefully read as much as you can about what has already been published in your field of research; and when you are doing so, make sure that you make lots of relevant notes as you go along in the process. Remember, your study does not necessarily have to be groundbreaking, but it should definitely extend previous knowledge or refute existing statements on the topic.

Secret ingredient 2: Use a thematic approach while drafting your manuscript

For instance, if you are writing about the association between the level of breast cancer awareness and socioeconomic status, open a new Word or Notes file and create subheadings such as “breast cancer awareness in low- and middle-income countries,” “reasons for lack of awareness,” or “ways to increase awareness.”

Under these subheadings, make notes of the information that you think may be suitable to be included in your paper as you carry out your literature review. Ensure that you make a draft reference list so that you don't miss out on the references.

Step 2: Know your audience

Finding your research topic is not synonymous with communicating it, it is merely a step, albeit an important one; however, there are other crucial steps that follow. One of which is identifying your target audience.

Now that you know what your topic of interest is, you need to ask yourself “Who am I trying to benefit with my research?” A general mistake is assuming that your reader knows everything about your research topic. Drafting a peer reviewed journal article often means that your work may reach a wide and varied audience.

Therefore, it is a good idea to ponder over who you want to reach and why, rather than simply delivering chunks of information, facts, and statistics. Along with considering the above factors, evaluate your reader's level of education, expertise, and scientific field as this may help you design and write your manuscript, tailoring it specifically for your target audience.

Here are a few points that you must consider after you have identified your target audience:

• Shortlist a few target journals: The aims and scope of the journal usually mention their audience. This may help you know your readers and visualize them as you write your manuscript. This will further help you include just the right amount of background and details.
• View your manuscript from the reader's perspective: Try to think about what they might already know or what they would like more details on.
• Include the appropriate amount of jargon: Ensure that your article text is familiar to your target audience and use the correct terminology to make your content more relatable for readers - and journal editors as your paper goes through the peer review process.
• Keep your readers engaged: Write with an aim to fill a knowledge gap or add purpose and value to your reader's intellect. Your manuscript does not necessarily have to be complex, write with a simple yet profound tone, layer (or sub-divide) simple points and build complexity as you go along, rather than stating dry facts.
• Be specific: It is easy to get carried away and forget the essence of your study. Make sure that you stick to your topic and be as specific as you can to your research topic and audience.

Secret ingredient 3: Clearly define your key terms and key concepts

Do not assume that your audience will know your research topic as well as you do, provide compelling details where it is due. This can be tricky. Using the example from “Secret ingredient 2,” you may not need to define breast cancer while writing about breast cancer awareness. However, while talking about the benefits of awareness, such as early presentation of the disease, it is important to explain these benefits, for instance, in terms of superior survival rates.

Step 3: Structure your research paper with care

After determining the topic of your research and your target audience, your overflowing ideas and information need to be structured in a format generally accepted by journals.

Most academic journals conventionally accept original research articles in the following format: Abstract, followed by the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections, also known as the IMRaD, which is a brilliant way of structuring a research paper outline in a simplified and layered format. In brief, these sections comprise the following information:

In closed-access journals, readers have access to the abstract/summary for them to decide if they wish to purchase the research paper. It's an extremely important representative of the entire manuscript.

All information provided in the abstract must be present in the manuscript, it should include a stand-alone summary of the research, the main findings, the abbreviations should be defined separately in this section, and this section should be clear, decluttered, and concise.

Introduction

This section should begin with a background of the study topic, i.e., what is already known, moving on to the knowledge gaps that exist, and finally, end with how the present study aims to fill these gaps, or any hypotheses that the authors may have proposed.

This section describes, with compelling details, the procedures that were followed to answer the research question.

The ultimate factor to consider while producing the methods section is reproducibility; this section should be detailed enough for other researchers to reproduce your study and validate your results. It should include ethical information (ethical board approval, informed consent, etc.) and must be written in the past tense.

This section typically presents the findings of the study, with no explanations or interpretations. Here, the findings are simply stated alongside figures or tables mentioned in the text in the correct sequential order. Because you are describing what you found, this section is also written in the past tense.

Discussion and conclusion

This section begins with a summary of your findings and is meant for you to interpret your results, compare them with previously published papers, and elaborate on whether your findings are comparable or contradictory to previous literature.

This section also contains the strengths and limitations of your study, and the latter can be used to suggest future research. End this section with a conclusion paragraph, briefly summarizing and highlighting the main findings and novelty of your study.

Step 4: Cite credible research sources

Now that you know who and what you are writing for, it's time to begin the writing process for your research paper. Another crucial factor that determines the quality of your manuscript is the detailed information within. The introduction and discussion sections, which make a massive portion of the manuscript, majorly rely on external sources of information that have already been published.

Therefore, it is absolutely indispensable to extract and cite these statements from appropriate, credible, recent, and relevant literature to support your claims. Here are a few pointers to consider while choosing the right sources:

Cite academic journals

These are the best sources to refer to while writing your research paper, because most articles submitted to top journals are rejected, resulting in high-quality articles being filtered-out. In particular, peer reviewed articles are of the highest quality because they undergo a rigorous process of editorial review, along with revisions until they are judged to be satisfactory.

But not just any book, ideally, the credibility of a book can be judged by whether it is published by an academic publisher, is written by multiple authors who are experts in the field of interest, and is carefully reviewed by multiple editors. It can be beneficial to review the background of the author(s) and check their previous publications.

Cite an official online source

Although it may be difficult to judge the trustworthiness of web content, a few factors may help determine its accuracy. These include demographic data obtained from government websites (.gov), educational resources (.edu), websites that cite other pertinent and trustworthy sources, content meant for education and not product promotion, unbiased sources, or sources with backlinks that are up to date. It is best to avoid referring to online sources such as blogs and Wikipedia.

Do not cite the following sources

While citing sources, you should steer clear from encyclopedias, citing review articles instead of directly citing the original work, referring to sources that you have not read, citing research papers solely from one country (be extensively diverse), anything that is not backed up by evidence, and material with considerable grammatical errors.

Although these sources are generally most appropriate and valid, it is your job to critically read and carefully evaluate all sources prior to citing them.

Step 5: Pick the correct journal

Selecting the correct journal is one of the most crucial steps toward getting published, as it not only determines the weightage of your research but also of your career as a researcher. The journals in which you choose to publish your research are part of your portfolio; it directly or indirectly determines many factors, such as funding, professional advancement, and future collaborations.

The best thing you can do for your work is to pick a peer-reviewed journal. Not only will your paper be polished to the highest quality for editors, but you will also be able to address certain gaps that you may have missed out.

Besides, it always helps to have another perspective, and what better than to have it from an experienced peer?

A common mistake that researchers tend to make is leave the task of choosing the target journal after they have written their paper.

Now, I understand that due to certain factors, it can be challenging to decide what journal you want to publish in before you start drafting your paper, therefore, the best time to make this decision is while you are working on writing your manuscript. Having a target journal in mind while writing your paper has a great deal of benefits.

• As the most basic benefit, you can know beforehand if your study meets the aims and scope of your desired journal. It will ensure you're not wasting valuable time for editors or yourself.
• While drafting your manuscript, you could keep in mind the requirements of your target journal, such as the word limit for the main article text and abstract, the maximum number of figures or tables that are allowed, or perhaps, the maximum number of references that you may include.
• Also, if you choose to submit to an open-access journal, you have ample amount of time to figure out the funding.
• Another major benefit is that, as mentioned in the previous section, the aims and scope of the journal will give you a fair idea on your target audience and will help you draft your manuscript appropriately.

It is definitely easier to know that your target journal requires the text to be within 3,500 words than spending weeks writing a manuscript that is around, say, 5,000 words, and then spending a substantial amount of time decluttering. Now, while not all journals have very specific requirements, it always helps to short-list a few journals, if not concretely choose one to publish your paper in.

AJE also offers journal recommendation services if you need professional help with finding a target journal.

Secret ingredient 4: Follow the journal guidelines

Perfectly written manuscripts may get rejected by the journal on account of not adhering to their formatting requirements. You can find the author guidelines/instructions on the home page of every journal. Ensure that as you write your manuscript, you follow the journal guidelines such as the word limit, British or American English, formatting references, line spacing, line/page numbering, and so on.

Our ultimate aim is to instill confidence in young researchers like you and help you become independent as you write and communicate your research. With the help of these easy steps and secret ingredients, you are now ready to prepare your flavorful manuscript and serve your research to editors and ultimately the journal readers with a side of impact and a dash of success.

Lubaina Koti, BS

Scientific Writer

See our "Privacy Policy"

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
• Published: 25 July 2024

Spillover of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 virus to dairy cattle

• Leonardo C. Caserta   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1643-8560 1   na1 ,
• Elisha A. Frye   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7784-6771 1   na1 ,
• Salman L. Butt 1   na1 ,
• Melissa Laverack 1 ,
• Mohammed Nooruzzaman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9358-1494 1 ,
• Lina M. Covaleda 1 ,
• Alexis C. Thompson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4405-5313 2 ,
• Melanie Prarat Koscielny 4 ,
• Brittany Cronk   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7239-4262 1 ,
• Ashley Johnson 4 ,
• Katie Kleinhenz 2 ,
• Erin E. Edwards   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9447-8395 3 ,
• Gabriel Gomez 3 ,
• Gavin Hitchener 1 ,
• Mathias Martins   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8290-5756 3 ,
• Darrell R. Kapczynski 5 ,
• David L. Suarez 5 ,
• Ellen Ruth Alexander Morris   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7957-4642 3 ,
• Terry Hensley 3 ,
• John S. Beeby 1 ,
• Manigandan Lejeune 1 ,
• Amy K. Swinford 3 ,
• François Elvinger 1 ,
• Kiril M. Dimitrov   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5525-4492 3 &
• Diego G. Diel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3237-8940 1  

Nature ( 2024 ) Cite this article

17k Accesses

1300 Altmetric

Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

• Influenza virus
• Molecular evolution

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b virus has caused the death of millions of domestic birds and thousands of wild birds in the U.S. since January, 2022 1–4 Throughout this outbreak, spillovers to mammals have been frequently documented 5–12 . We report spillover of HPAI H5N1 virus in dairy cattle herds across several states in the U.S. The affected cows displayed clinical signs encompassing decreased feed intake, altered fecal consistency, respiratory distress, and decreased milk production with abnormal milk. Infectious virus and viral RNA were consistently detected in milk from affected cows. Viral distribution in tissues via immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization revealed a distinct tropism of the virus for the epithelial cells lining the alveoli of the mammary gland in cows. Whole viral genome sequences recovered from dairy cows, birds, domestic cats, and a raccoon from affected farms indicated multidirectional interspecies transmissions. Epidemiologic and genomic data revealed efficient cow-to-cow transmission after apparently healthy cows from an affected farm were transported to a premise in a different state. These results demonstrate the transmission of HPAI H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b virus at a non-traditional interface underscoring the ability of the virus to cross species barriers.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

Pathogenicity and transmissibility of bovine H5N1 influenza virus

Risk assessment of a highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus from mink

Persistence of viral RNA in North American elk experimentally infected with an ancestral strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Author information.

These authors contributed equally: Leonardo C. Caserta, Elisha A. Frye, Salman L. Butt

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, Animal Health Diagnostic Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Leonardo C. Caserta, Elisha A. Frye, Salman L. Butt, Melissa Laverack, Mohammed Nooruzzaman, Lina M. Covaleda, Brittany Cronk, Gavin Hitchener, John S. Beeby, Manigandan Lejeune, François Elvinger & Diego G. Diel

Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, Canyon, TX, USA

Alexis C. Thompson & Katie Kleinhenz

Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College Station, TX, USA

Erin E. Edwards, Gabriel Gomez, Mathias Martins, Ellen Ruth Alexander Morris, Terry Hensley, Amy K. Swinford & Kiril M. Dimitrov

Ohio Animal Disease and Diagnostic Laboratory, Ohio Department of Agriculture, Reynoldsburg, OH, USA

Melanie Prarat Koscielny & Ashley Johnson

Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, U.S. National Poultry Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Athens, GA, USA

Darrell R. Kapczynski & David L. Suarez

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Kiril M. Dimitrov or Diego G. Diel .

Supplementary information

Supplementary discussion.

This file contains Supplementary discussion that complements the discussion section of the main text, and Supplementary References.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary table 1.

RT-PCR data in CSV format showing testing results for Influenza A Matrix and H5-specific RT-PCR on all samples tested in the present study.

Supplementary Table 2

RT-PCR data in CSV format showing testing results for Influenza A Matrix and H5-specific RT-PCR on serial samples collected on days 3, 16 and 31 post-clinical diagnosis (pcd).

Supplementary Table 3

Mutational analysis in CVS format showing all amino acid mutations identified in PB2, PB1, PA, HA, NA, M (M1 and M2), NS (NS1 and NS2) gene segments of the highly pathogenic influenza A H5N1 virus sequences obtained in the present study. Predicted phenotype changes as reported through FluServer (GISAID) are also included.

Supplementary Table 4

List of sequences including GISAID accession numbers in CVS format used in the phylogenomic and mutational analyses conducted in the present study.

Supplementary Table 5

List of highly pathogenic influenza A H5N1 virus sequences obtained in the present study including GISAID accession numbers in CVS format and sample metadata (H5 clade classification, genotype, collection date, state, host, sample type and premise).

Supplementary Table 6

Mutational analysis in CVS format showing amino acid mutations that accumulated over time and identified in PB2, PB1, PA, HA, NA, NP and NS1 genome segments of highly pathogenic influenza H5N1 virus and their frequency among the available H5N1 sequences derived from cattle.

Peer Review File

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Caserta, L.C., Frye, E.A., Butt, S.L. et al. Spillover of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 virus to dairy cattle. Nature (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07849-4

Download citation

Received : 22 May 2024

Accepted : 18 July 2024

Published : 25 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07849-4

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.

Different types of research articles

A guide for early career researchers.

In scholarly literature, there are many different kinds of articles published every year. Original research articles are often the first thing you think of when you hear the words ‘journal article’. In reality, research work often results in a whole mixture of different outputs and it’s not just the final research article that can be published.

Finding a home to publish supporting work in different formats can help you start publishing sooner, allowing you to build your publication record and research profile.

But before you do, it’s very important that you check the  instructions for authors  and the  aims and scope  of the journal(s) you’d like to submit to. These will tell you whether they accept the type of article you’re thinking of writing and what requirements they have around it.

Understanding the different kind of articles

There’s a huge variety of different types of articles – some unique to individual journals – so it’s important to explore your options carefully. While it would be impossible to cover every single article type here, below you’ll find a guide to the most common research articles and outputs you could consider submitting for publication.

Book review

Many academic journals publish book reviews, which aim to provide insight and opinion on recently published scholarly books. Writing book reviews is often a good way to begin academic writing. It can help you get your name known in your field and give you valuable experience of publishing before you write a full-length article.

If you’re keen to write a book review, a good place to start is looking for journals that publish or advertise the books they have available for review. Then it’s just a matter of putting yourself forward for one of them.

You can check whether a journal publishes book reviews by browsing previous issues or by seeing if a book review editor is listed on the editorial board. In addition, some journals publish other types of reviews, such as film, product, or exhibition reviews, so it’s worth bearing those in mind as options as well.

Get familiar with instructions for authors

Be prepared, speed up your submission, and make sure nothing is forgotten by understanding a journal’s individual requirements.

Publishing tips, direct to your inbox

Expert tips and guidance on getting published and maximizing the impact of your research. Register now for weekly insights direct to your inbox.

Case report

A medical case report – also sometimes called a clinical case study – is an original short report that provides details of a single patient case.

Case reports include detailed information on the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient. They remain one of the cornerstones of medical progress and provide many new ideas in medicine.

Depending on the journal, a case report doesn’t necessarily need to describe an especially novel or unusual case as there is benefit from collecting details of many standard cases.

Take a look at  F1000Research’s guidance on case reports , to understand more about what’s required in them. And don’t forget that for all studies involving human participants, informed written consent to take part in the research must be obtained from the participants –  find out more about consent to publish.

Clinical study

In medicine, a clinical study report is a type of article that provides in-depth detail on the methods and results of a clinical trial. They’re typically similar in length and format to original research articles.

Most journals now require that you register protocols for clinical trials you’re involved with in a publicly accessible registry. A list of eligible registries can be found on the  WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) . Trials can also be registered at  clinicaltrials.gov  or the  EU Clinical Trials Register . Once registered, your trial will be assigned a clinical trial number (CTN).

Before you submit a clinical study, you’ll need to include clinical trial numbers and registration dates in the manuscript, usually in the abstract and methods sections.

Commentaries and letters to editors

Letters to editors, as well as ‘replies’ and ‘discussions’, are usually brief comments on topical issues of public and political interest (related to the research field of the journal), anecdotal material, or readers’ reactions to material published in the journal.

Commentaries are similar, though they may be slightly more in-depth, responding to articles recently published in the journal. There may be a ‘target article’ which various commentators are invited to respond to.

You’ll need to look through previous issues of any journal you’re interested in writing for and review the instructions for authors to see which types of these articles (if any) they accept.

Conference materials

Many of our medical journals  accept conference material supplements. These are open access peer-reviewed, permanent, and citable publications within the journal. Conference material supplements record research around a common thread, as presented at a workshop, congress, or conference, for the scientific record. They can include the following types of articles:

Poster extracts

Conference abstracts

Presentation extracts

Find out more about submitting conference materials.

Data notes  are a short peer-reviewed article type that concisely describe research data stored in a repository. Publishing a data note can help you to maximize the impact of your data and gain appropriate credit for your research.

Data notes promote the potential reuse of research data and include details of why and how the data were created. They do not include any analysis but they can be linked to a research article incorporating analysis of the published dataset, as well as the results and conclusions.

F1000Research  enables you to publish your data note rapidly and openly via an author-centric platform. There is also a growing range of options for publishing data notes in Taylor & Francis journals, including in  All Life  and  Big Earth Data .

Read our guide to data notes to find out more.

Letters or short reports

Letters or short reports (sometimes known as brief communications or rapid communications) are brief reports of data from original research.

Editors publish these reports where they believe the data will be interesting to many researchers and could stimulate further research in the field. There are even entire journals dedicated to publishing letters.

As they’re relatively short, the format is useful for researchers with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full original research article.

Brief reports  (previously called Research Notes) are a type of short report published by  F1000Research  – part of the Taylor & Francis Group. To find out more about the requirements for a brief report, take a look at  F1000Research’s guidance .

Method article

A method article is a medium length peer-reviewed, research-focused article type that aims to answer a specific question. It also describes an advancement or development of current methodological approaches and research procedures (akin to a research article), following the standard layout for research articles. This includes new study methods, substantive modifications to existing methods, or innovative applications of existing methods to new models or scientific questions. These should include adequate and appropriate validation to be considered, and any datasets associated with the paper must publish all experimental controls and make full datasets available.  

Posters and slides

With F1000Research, you can publish scholarly posters and slides covering basic scientific, translational, and clinical research within the life sciences and medicine. You can find out more about how to publish posters and slides  on the F1000Research website .

Registered report

A  Registered Report  consists of two different kinds of articles: a study protocol and an original research article.

This is because the review process for Registered Reports is divided into two stages. In Stage 1, reviewers assess study protocols before data is collected. In Stage 2, reviewers consider the full published study as an original research article, including results and interpretation.

Taking this approach, you can get an in-principle acceptance of your research article before you start collecting data. We’ve got  further guidance on Registered Reports here , and you can also  read F1000Research’s guidance on preparing a Registered Report .

Research article

Original research articles are the most common type of journal article. They’re detailed studies reporting new work and are classified as primary literature.

You may find them referred to as original articles, research articles, research, or even just articles, depending on the journal.

Typically, especially in STEM subjects, these articles will include Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections. However, you should always check the instructions for authors of your chosen journal to see whether it specifies how your article should be structured. If you’re planning to write an original research article, take a look at our guidance on  writing a journal article .

Review article

Review articles provide critical and constructive analysis of existing published literature in a field. They’re usually structured to provide a summary of existing literature, analysis, and comparison. Often, they identify specific gaps or problems and provide recommendations for future research.

Unlike original research articles, review articles are considered as secondary literature. This means that they generally don’t present new data from the author’s experimental work, but instead provide analysis or interpretation of a body of primary research on a specific topic. Secondary literature is an important part of the academic ecosystem because it can help explain new or different positions and ideas about primary research, identify gaps in research around a topic, or spot important trends that one individual research article may not.

There are 3 main types of review article

Literature review

Presents the current knowledge including substantive findings as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic.

Systematic review

Identifies, appraises and synthesizes all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making.

Meta-analysis

A quantitative, formal, epidemiological study design used to systematically assess the results of previous research to derive conclusions about that body of research. Typically, but not necessarily, a meta-analysis study is based on randomized, controlled clinical trials.

Take a look at our guide to  writing a review article  for more guidance on what’s required.

Software tool articles

A  software tool article  – published by  F1000Research  – describes the rationale for the development of a new software tool and details of the code used for its construction.

The article should provide examples of suitable input data sets and include an example of the output that can be expected from the tool and how this output should be interpreted. Software tool articles submitted to F1000Research should be written in open access programming languages. Take a look at  their guidance  for more details on what’s required of a software tool article.

Further resources

Ready to write your article, but not sure where to start?

For more guidance on how to prepare and write an article for a journal you can download the  Writing your paper eBook .

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
• Int J Sports Phys Ther
• v.7(5); 2012 Oct

HOW TO WRITE A SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE

Barbara j. hoogenboom.

1 Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA

Robert C. Manske

2 University of Wichita, Wichita, KS, USA

Successful production of a written product for submission to a peer‐reviewed scientific journal requires substantial effort. Such an effort can be maximized by following a few simple suggestions when composing/creating the product for submission. By following some suggested guidelines and avoiding common errors, the process can be streamlined and success realized for even beginning/novice authors as they negotiate the publication process. The purpose of this invited commentary is to offer practical suggestions for achieving success when writing and submitting manuscripts to The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy and other professional journals.

INTRODUCTION

“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking” Albert Einstein

Conducting scientific and clinical research is only the beginning of the scholarship of discovery. In order for the results of research to be accessible to other professionals and have a potential effect on the greater scientific community, it must be written and published. Most clinical and scientific discovery is published in peer‐reviewed journals, which are those that utilize a process by which an author's peers, or experts in the content area, evaluate the manuscript. Following this review the manuscript is recommended for publication, revision or rejection. It is the rigor of this review process that makes scientific journals the primary source of new information that impacts clinical decision‐making and practice. 1 , 2

The task of writing a scientific paper and submitting it to a journal for publication is a time‐consuming and often daunting task. 3 , 4 Barriers to effective writing include lack of experience, poor writing habits, writing anxiety, unfamiliarity with the requirements of scholarly writing, lack of confidence in writing ability, fear of failure, and resistance to feedback. 5 However, the very process of writing can be a helpful tool for promoting the process of scientific thinking, 6 , 7 and effective writing skills allow professionals to participate in broader scientific conversations. Furthermore, peer review manuscript publication systems requiring these technical writing skills can be developed and improved with practice. 8 Having an understanding of the process and structure used to produce a peer‐reviewed publication will surely improve the likelihood that a submitted manuscript will result in a successful publication.

Clear communication of the findings of research is essential to the growth and development of science 3 and professional practice. The culmination of the publication process provides not only satisfaction for the researcher and protection of intellectual property, but also the important function of dissemination of research results, new ideas, and alternate thought; which ultimately facilitates scholarly discourse. In short, publication of scientific papers is one way to advance evidence‐based practice in many disciplines, including sports physical therapy. Failure to publish important findings significantly diminishes the potential impact that those findings may have on clinical practice. 9

BASICS OF MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION & GENERAL WRITING TIPS

To begin it might be interesting to learn why reviewers accept manuscripts! Reviewers consider the following five criteria to be the most important in decisions about whether to accept manuscripts for publication: 1) the importance, timeliness, relevance, and prevalence of the problem addressed; 2) the quality of the writing style (i.e., that it is well‐written, clear, straightforward, easy to follow, and logical); 3) the study design applied (i.e., that the design was appropriate, rigorous, and comprehensive); 4) the degree to which the literature review was thoughtful, focused, and up‐to‐date; and 5) the use of a sufficiently large sample. 10 For these statements to be true there are also reasons that reviewers reject manuscripts. The following are the top five reasons for rejecting papers: 1) inappropriate, incomplete, or insufficiently described statistics; 2) over‐interpretation of results; 3) use of inappropriate, suboptimal, or insufficiently described populations or instruments; 4) small or biased samples; and 5) text that is poorly written or difficult to follow. 10 , 11 With these reasons for acceptance or rejection in mind, it is time to review basics and general writing tips to be used when performing manuscript preparation.

“Begin with the end in mind” . When you begin writing about your research, begin with a specific target journal in mind. 12 Every scientific journal should have specific lists of manuscript categories that are preferred for their readership. The IJSPT seeks to provide readership with current information to enhance the practice of sports physical therapy. Therefore the manuscript categories accepted by IJSPT include: Original research; Systematic reviews of literature; Clinical commentary and Current concept reviews; Case reports; Clinical suggestions and unique practice techniques; and Technical notes. Once a decision has been made to write a manuscript, compose an outline that complies with the requirements of the target submission journal and has each of the suggested sections. This means carefully checking the submission criteria and preparing your paper in the exact format of the journal to which you intend to submit. Be thoughtful about the distinction between content (what you are reporting) and structure (where it goes in the manuscript). Poor placement of content confuses the reader (reviewer) and may cause misinterpretation of content. 3 , 5

It may be helpful to follow the IMRaD format for writing scientific manuscripts. This acronym stands for the sections contained within the article: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Each of these areas of the manuscript will be addressed in this commentary.

Many accomplished authors write their results first, followed by an introduction and discussion, in an attempt to “stay true” to their results and not stray into additional areas. Typically the last two portions to be written are the conclusion and the abstract.

The ability to accurately describe ideas, protocols/procedures, and outcomes are the pillars of scientific writing . Accurate and clear expression of your thoughts and research information should be the primary goal of scientific writing. 12 Remember that accuracy and clarity are even more important when trying to get complicated ideas across. Contain your literature review, ideas, and discussions to your topic, theme, model, review, commentary, or case. Avoid vague terminology and too much prose. Use short rather than long sentences. If jargon has to be utilized keep it to a minimum and explain the terms you do use clearly. 13

Write with a measure of formality, using scientific language and avoiding conjunctions, slang, and discipline or regionally specific nomenclature or terms (e.g. exercise nicknames). For example, replace the term “Monster walks” with “closed‐chain hip abduction with elastic resistance around the thighs”. You may later refer to the exercise as “also known as Monster walks” if you desire.

Avoid first person language and instead write using third person language. Some journals do not ascribe to this requirement, and allow first person references, however, IJSPT prefers use of third person. For example, replace “We determined that…” with “The authors determined that….”.

For novice writers, it is really helpful to seek a reading mentor that will help you pre‐read your submission. Problems such as improper use of grammar, tense, and spelling are often a cause of rejection by reviewers. Despite the content of the study these easily fixed errors suggest that the authors created the manuscript with less thought leading reviewers to think that the manuscript may also potentially have erroneous findings as well. A review from a second set of trained eyes will often catch these errors missed by the original authors. If English is not your first language, the editorial staff at IJSPT suggests that you consult with someone with the relevant expertise to give you guidance on English writing conventions, verb tense, and grammar. Excellent writing in English is hard, even for those of us for whom it is our first language!

Use figures and graphics to your advantage . ‐ Consider the use of graphic/figure representation of data and important procedures or exercises. Tables should be able to stand alone and be completely understandable at a quick glance. Understanding a table should not require careful review of the manuscript! Figures dramatically enhance the graphic appeal of a scientific paper. Many formats for graphic presentation are acceptable, including graphs, charts, tables, and pictures or videos. Photographs should be clear, free of clutter or extraneous background distractions and be taken with models wearing simple clothing. Color photographs are preferred. Digital figures (Scans or existing files as well as new photographs) must be at least 300dpi. All photographs should be provided as separate files (jpeg or tif preferred) and not be embedded in the paper. Quality and clarity of figures are essential for reproduction purposes and should be considered before taking images for the manuscript.

A video of an exercise or procedure speaks a thousand words. Please consider using short video clips as descriptive additions to your paper. They will be placed on the IJSPT website and accompany your paper. The video clips must be submitted in MPEG‐1, MPEG‐2, Quicktime (.mov), or Audio/Video Interface (.avi) formats. Maximum cumulative length of videos is 5 minutes. Each video segment may not exceed 50 MB, and each video clip must be saved as a separate file and clearly identified. Formulate descriptive figure/video and Table/chart/graph titles and place them on a figure legend document. Carefully consider placement of, naming of, and location of figures. It makes the job of the editors much easier!

Avoid Plagiarism and inadvertent lack of citations. Finally, use citations to your benefit. Cite frequently in order to avoid any plagiarism. The bottom line: If it is not your original idea, give credit where credit is due . When using direct quotations, provide not only the number of the citation, but the page where the quote was found. All citations should appear in text as a superscripted number followed by punctuation. It is the authors' responsibility to fully ensure all references are cited in completed form, in an accurate location. Please carefully follow the instructions for citations and check that all references in your reference list are cited in the paper and that all citations in the paper appear correctly in the reference list. Please go to IJSPT submission guidelines for full information on the format for citations.

Sometimes written as an afterthought, the abstract is of extreme importance as in many instances this section is what is initially previewed by readership to determine if the remainder of the article is worth reading. This is the authors opportunity to draw the reader into the study and entice them to read the rest of the article. The abstract is a summary of the article or study written in 3 rd person allowing the readers to get a quick glance of what the contents of the article include. Writing an abstract is rather challenging as being brief, accurate and concise are requisite. The headings and structure for an abstract are usually provided in the instructions for authors. In some instances, the abstract may change slightly pending content revisions required during the peer review process. Therefore it often works well to complete this portion of the manuscript last. Remember the abstract should be able to stand alone and should be as succinct as possible. 14

Introduction and Review of Literature

The introduction is one of the more difficult portions of the manuscript to write. Past studies are used to set the stage or provide the reader with information regarding the necessity of the represented project. For an introduction to work properly, the reader must feel that the research question is clear, concise, and worthy of study.

A competent introduction should include at least four key concepts: 1) significance of the topic, 2) the information gap in the available literature associated with the topic, 3) a literature review in support of the key questions, 4) subsequently developed purposes/objectives and hypotheses. 9

When constructing a review of the literature, be attentive to “sticking” or “staying true” to your topic at hand. Don't reach or include too broad of a literature review. For example, do not include extraneous information about performance or prevention if your research does not actually address those things. The literature review of a scientific paper is not an exhaustive review of all available knowledge in a given field of study. That type of thorough review should be left to review articles or textbook chapters. Throughout the introduction (and later in the discussion!) remind yourself that a paper, existing evidence, or results of a paper cannot draw conclusions, demonstrate, describe, or make judgments, only PEOPLE (authors) can. “The evidence demonstrates that” should be stated, “Smith and Jones, demonstrated that….”

Conclude your introduction with a solid statement of your purpose(s) and your hypothesis(es), as appropriate. The purpose and objectives should clearly relate to the information gap associated with the given manuscript topic discussed earlier in the introduction section. This may seem repetitive, but it actually is helpful to ensure the reader clearly sees the evolution, importance, and critical aspects of the study at hand See Table 1 for examples of well‐stated purposes.

Examples of well-stated purposes by submission type.

The methods section should clearly describe the specific design of the study and provide clear and concise description of the procedures that were performed. The purpose of sufficient detail in the methods section is so that an appropriately trained person would be able to replicate your experiments. 15 There should be complete transparency when describing the study. To assist in writing and manuscript preparation there are several checklists or guidelines that are available on the IJSPT website. The CONSORT guidelines can be used when developing and reporting a randomized controlled trial. 16 The STARD checklist was developed for designing a diagnostic accuracy study. 17 The PRISMA checklist was developed for use when performing a meta‐analyses or systematic review. 18 A clear methods section should contain the following information: 1) the population and equipment used in the study, 2) how the population and equipment were prepared and what was done during the study, 3) the protocol used, 4) the outcomes and how they were measured, 5) the methods used for data analysis. Initially a brief paragraph should explain the overall procedures and study design. Within this first paragraph there is generally a description of inclusion and exclusion criteria which help the reader understand the population used. Paragraphs that follow should describe in more detail the procedures followed for the study. A clear description of how data was gathered is also helpful. For example were data gathered prospectively or retrospectively? Who if anyone was blinded, and where and when was the actual data collected?

Although it is a good idea for the authors to have justification and a rationale for their procedures, these should be saved for inclusion into the discussion section, not to be discussed in the methods section. However, occasionally studies supporting components of the methods section such as reliability of tests, or validation of outcome measures may be included in the methods section.

The final portion of the methods section will include the statistical methods used to analyze the data. 19 This does not mean that the actual results should be discussed in the methods section, as they have an entire section of their own!

Most scientific journals support the need for all projects involving humans or animals to have up‐to‐date documentation of ethical approval. 20 The methods section should include a clear statement that the researchers have obtained approval from an appropriate institutional review board.

Results, Discussion, and Conclusions

In most journals the results section is separate from the discussion section. It is important that you clearly distinguish your results from your discussion. The results section should describe the results only. The discussion section should put those results into a broader context. Report your results neutrally, as you “found them”. Again, be thoughtful about content and structure. Think carefully about where content is placed in the overall structure of your paper. It is not appropriate to bring up additional results, not discussed in the results section, in the discussion. All results must first be described/presented and then discussed. Thus, the discussion should not simply be a repeat of the results section. Carefully discuss where your information is similar or different from other published evidence and why this might be so. What was different in methods or analysis, what was similar?

As previously stated, stick to your topic at hand, and do not overstretch your discussion! One of the major pitfalls in writing the discussion section is overstating the significance of your findings 4 or making very strong statements. For example, it is better to say: “Findings of the current study support….” or “these findings suggest…” than, “Findings of the current study prove that…” or “this means that….”. Maintain a sense of humbleness, as nothing is without question in the outcomes of any type of research, in any discipline! Use words like “possibly”, “likely” or “suggests” to soften findings. 12

Do not discuss extraneous ideas, concepts, or information not covered by your topic/paper/commentary. Be sure to carefully address all relevant results, not just the statistically significant ones or the ones that support your hypotheses. When you must resort to speculation or opinion, be certain to state that up front using phrases such as “we therefore speculate” or “in the authors' opinion”.

Remember, just as in the introduction and literature review, evidence or results cannot draw conclusions, just as previously stated, only people, scientists, researchers, and authors can!

Finish with a concise, 3‐5 sentence conclusion paragraph. This is not just a restatement of your results, rather is comprised of some final, summative statements that reflect the flow and outcomes of the entire paper. Do not include speculative statements or additional material; however, based upon your findings a statement about potential changes in clinical practice or future research opportunities can be provided here.

CONCLUSIONS

Writing for publication can be a challenging yet satisfying endeavor. The ability to examine, relate, and interlink evidence, as well as to provide a peer‐reviewed, disseminated product of your research labors can be rewarding. A few suggestions have been offered in this commentary that may assist the novice or the developing writer to attempt, polish, and perfect their approach to scholarly writing.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Difference between Paper and Article for scientific writings

As I know, in most of situations (in scientific context) these two terms are used to point to same thing and even they are used interchangeably.

For example,

Theory of value with public goods: A survey article

A survey paper on cloud computing

Are there any major differences between them? and can we use them interchangeably in any context?

• differences

• 1 See also: article vs paper –  Martin Thoma Commented Nov 24, 2019 at 11:46

3 Answers 3

The following extract helps understand the difference between a research article and a research paper :

Research paper and research articles are pieces of writing that require critical analysis, inquiry, insight, and demonstration of some special skills from students and scientists. It is really overwhelming for students when their teachers ask them to write a research paper as a form of assignment. Students remain confused between a research paper and a research article because of their similarities. This article attempts to find out if the two terms are synonymous or there is any difference between the two.

Research Article

What do you do when you are a scientist or a scholar and have arrived at a solution to a problem or have made a discovery that you want to share with the world? Well, one of the best ways to let the world know about your piece of wisdom or knowledge is through a research article. This is a piece of writing that contains an original research idea with the relevant data and findings Research article is published in renowned scientific journals that are involved with works in the area to which the paper pertains. A research article is a paper or writing that informs people of a path breaking research or a finding with clinical data to support the finding.

Research Paper

Research is an activity that is given much importance in academics, and this is why assignments requiring research and technical writing start early in the school. Students are asked to submit a research paper as early as in High School, and they become used to the concept when they are pursuing higher studies in colleges. However, a research paper is not just these assignment papers written by students as those written by scholars and scientists and published in journals are also referred to as research papers.

• What is the difference between Research Article and Research Paper?

• There is no difference as such between a research article and a research paper and both involve original research with findings. • There is a trend to refer to term papers and academic papers written by students in colleges as research papers whereas articles submitted by scholars and scientists with their groundbreaking research are termed as research articles. • Research articles are published in renowned scientific journals whereas papers written by students do not go to journals.

(www.differencebetween.com)

There is no definitive distinction between papers and articles that can be applied to all scientific disciplines. Usage varies between disciplines. and within disciplines it can vary depending on context.

Both the examples quoted refer to ‘writings’ that are surveys (in other areas often termed reviews) — one in the field of a social science (economics) and the other in a numerical science (computing). However the term science is also (and perhaps more) associated with the experimental sciences (physics, chemistry and biology), where the types of ‘writings’ are different and where different words are used to distinguish them.

Articles and papers in the Experimental Sciences

Let me illustrate this for the Biomolecular Sciences (biochemistry, molecular biology, molecular genetics and the like). As a practitioner in this area, when I hear these terms, e.g. talking to colleagues, I understand:

Paper : A report of a piece of experimental research work in which the original data presented by the authors was central to interpretation and conclusions regarding advancement of knowledge and understanding of the field. Article : A review or commentary in which the author was discussing the previously published work of others (perhaps including his own) in attempting to provide a perspective of the field or to present a new theory/model/interpretation by integrating such work.

However, despite this professional conversational use of the terms, if I go to any specific journal — here the US heavyweight, Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) — I would find a somewhat different usage:

JBC publishes several types of articles but only two of those can be submitted as an unsolicited manuscript: regular papers and accelerated communications.

Thus, JBC regards all the ‘writings’ it publishes as ‘articles’, in common with other journals such as The Journal of Biophysics , and this is consistent with general non-scientific usage — “I read an article in the Financial Times yesterday…”

The way JBC uses ‘regular paper’, is consistent with my specialist conversational definition (above), and although it doesn’t actually say what types of ‘article’ are unsolicited, but if you look at a table of contents of the journal , you would conclude that for this journal it is ‘minireviews’ and historical appraisals of the work of individual scientists.

The Journal of Biophysics only uses the term ‘paper’ in describing only one of its categories of ‘article’:

Comments to the Editor | Short commentaries on a paper published earlier in BJ.

Again using ‘paper’ rather in the sense I defined above.

To conclude, in the extended sense used by peer-reviewed journals in the experimental sciences, all published ‘papers’ can be referred to as articles, but not all articles would be referred to as ‘papers’. (One wouldn’t use ‘paper’ for an editorial, a news item and generally not for a review.) This is exactly the opposite conclusion reached by @1006a from his reading of the OED.

Conflict with the OED and non-experimental sciences

How can one resolve the conflict with the OED, mentioned above? I think the OED describes more traditional usage in the non-experimental sciences and the arts. It is pertinent, in this respect, to consider the phrase “reading a paper” .

As far as my area of science goes, this is just a rather outdated term for presenting one’s results orally at a conference. The talk in itself is transitory, the abstract unreviewed, and the information conveyed will most probably be published elsewhere.

However for colleagues in computing science the talk is likely to be based on a ‘paper’ that has been submitted to the conference organisers, selected after peer-review, and will be published as conference proceedings or in a journal associated with the conference. This is more in line with traditional non-scientific academic presentations, although in this case the ‘paper’ might never have been published.

The difference would seem to derive in part from whether the field of science is one in which original work is in the form of ideas or in the form of measurements and their interpretation.

The distinction I would make is that an article is formally published, generally in some kind of periodical. The relevant definition, from Oxford Dictionaries:

A piece of writing included with others in a newspaper, magazine, or other publication.

Scholarly/scientific/research articles are thus "pieces of writing included with others in" an appropriate publication, most often an academic journal (see Wikipedia).

A paper , on the other hand, may or may not be published anywhere; and if it is published, may be in some alternate venue like conference proceedings (though it can be published in a scholarly journal). Again from Oxford:

An essay or dissertation, especially one read at an academic lecture or seminar or published in an academic journal.

So you can generally call any scientific (research) article a paper, but not all papers are articles.

Edited to clarify the last sentence, to which I also added the parenthetical (research):

Of course, not all articles are scientific (or research ) articles; that distinction generally means that the article presents original research, and as I am using it, that it has met certain standards of whichever field it represents (usually some form of peer review) so that it can be published in a scientific/scholarly journal. A scientific (research) paper meets the first of these criteria, but not necessarily the second (it presents original research, but may or may not be published). There are other kinds of articles/papers, which would ordinarily get a different modifier, like review or meta-review (or newspaper/magazine etc. for articles), or might commonly go by other terms altogether, like essay .

By this definition, not all articles are papers, and not all papers are articles, but all scientific (research) articles are also scientific (research) papers.

• Just to mention that in my consideration of experimental sciences I present the opposite conclusion from that you draw from the OED. Please don't think I am saying you are wrong, but as I explain, that your assertions only hold for certain areas of science. –  David Commented Jul 15, 2017 at 22:27
• @David The key distinction I make is that articles are published . That would, indeed, include things like (literature) review articles, commentary, and possibly book reviews. It does not exclude original research in any field of which I am aware (which includes "experimental science"). It is certainly possible that certain disciplines or specific journals have non-standard usages, but I don't believe it breaks down along "experimental" and "non-experimental" lines. –  1006a Commented Jul 16, 2017 at 16:38
• I agree about there being a difference in relation to publication. The whole background of "reading a paper" implies it can exist without being published, and even in the experimental sciences one might say "I wrote a paper about 'whatever' and sent it to such-and-such a Journal, but they rejected it because the referees were too stupid to understand it". You might feasibly say that about an article (I once had a solicited mini-review rejected because it was thought to be in bad taste) but it would be unusual. But a very popular program for storing PDFs of publications is called... "Papers". –  David Commented Jul 16, 2017 at 16:53

Your Answer

Sign up or log in, post as a guest.

Required, but never shown

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy .

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged meaning differences science or ask your own question .

• Featured on Meta
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process
• Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...

Hot Network Questions

• Structure of the headline "Olympics organizers scramble as furor over woke blasphemy grows."
• Does the throttling profile data for any STS missions exist?
• Hypothesis and Scientific Method
• Do finite field point counts remember the singularities of an algebraic variety?
• Why try to explain the unexplainable?
• End effect of precognition in a physical fight
• Terminology: A "corollary" to a proof?
• Research Faculty with no salary
• Do most aircraft have a ditch button in the case of emergency?
• How does the torque transfer from the reaction wheel to the satellite body occur?
• Homotopy and Homology groups of two disks glued with twists
• Is this a valid Irish word?
• UK citizen travel document to enter Ireland by air
• Question about Bochner measurability
• How do I cash in Physical Bitcoins?
• Why use a MOSFET and a BJT in this simple circuit?
• The relevance of knowing "just facts"
• How long should I boil a liquid mixture containing vanilla extract to vaporize the alcohol, when making ice cream?
• JSON Web Encryption (JWE) vs HTTPS? or Both
• Why is "hidden dependency" (required things not in parameter list directly) a disadvantage of "global variables", but not in "preserve whole object"?
• Are there non-religious variants of moral realism that defend the existence of objectively evil thoughts, intentions, and desires?
• What exactly is code and how does it relate to law? Where does it fit into the hierarchy of law?
• Python Regex to match the FIRST repetition of a digit
• How can I handle unavailable papers in a systematic literature review?

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

Sharing research data

As a researcher, you are increasingly encouraged, or even mandated, to make your research data available, accessible, discoverable and usable.

Sharing research data is something we are passionate about too, so we’ve created this short video and written guide to help you get started.

Research Data

What is research data.

While the definition often differs per field, generally, research data refers to the results of observations or experiments that validate your research findings. These span a range of useful materials associated with your research project, including:

Raw or processed data files

Research data  does not  include text in manuscript or final published article form, or data or other materials submitted and published as part of a journal article.

Why should I share my research data?

There are so many good reasons. We’ve listed just a few:

How you benefit

You get credit for the work you've done

Leads to more citations! 1

Can boost your number of publications

Increases your exposure and may lead to new collaborations

What it means for the research community

It's easy to reuse and reinterpret your data

Duplication of experiments can be avoided

New insights can be gained, sparking new lines of inquiry

Empowers replication

And society at large…

Greater transparency boosts public faith in research

Can play a role in guiding government policy

Improves access to research for those outside health and academia

Benefits the public purse as funding of repeat work is reduced

How do I share my research data?

The good news is it’s easy.

Yet to submit your research article?  There are a number of options available. These may vary depending on the journal you have chosen, so be sure to read the  Research Data  section in its  Guide for Authors  before you begin.

Already published your research article?  No problem – it’s never too late to share the research data associated with it.

Two of the most popular data sharing routes are:

Publishing a research elements article

These brief, peer-reviewed articles complement full research papers and are an easy way to receive proper credit and recognition for the work you have done. Research elements are research outputs that have come about as a result of following the research cycle – this includes things like data, methods and protocols, software, hardware and more.

You can publish research elements articles in several different Elsevier journals, including  our suite of dedicated Research Elements journals . They are easy to submit, are subject to a peer review process, receive a DOI and are fully citable. They also make your work more sharable, discoverable, comprehensible, reusable and reproducible.

The accompanying raw data can still be placed in a repository of your choice (see below).

Uploading your data to a repository like Mendeley Data

Mendeley Data is a certified, free-to-use repository that hosts open data from all disciplines, whatever its format (e.g. raw and processed data, tables, codes and software). With many Elsevier journals, it’s possible to upload and store your data to Mendeley Data during the manuscript submission process. You can also upload your data directly to the repository. In each case, your data will receive a DOI, making it independently citable and it can be linked to any associated article on ScienceDirect, making it easy for readers to find and reuse.

View an article featuring Mendeley data opens in new tab/window  (just select the  Research Data  link in the left-hand bar or scroll down the page).

What if I can’t submit my research data?

Data statements offer transparency.

We understand that there are times when the data is simply not available to post or there are good reasons why it shouldn’t be shared.  A number of Elsevier journals encourage authors to submit a data statement alongside their manuscript. This statement allows you to clearly explain the data you’ve used in the article and the reasons why it might not be available.  The statement will appear with the article on ScienceDirect. 

View a sample data statement opens in new tab/window  (just select the  Research Data  link in the left-hand bar or scroll down the page).

Showcasing your research data on ScienceDirect

We have 3 top tips to help you maximize the impact of your data in your article on ScienceDirect.

Link with data repositories

You can create bidirectional links between any data repositories you’ve used to store your data and your online article. If you’ve published a data article, you can link to that too.

Enrich with interactive data visualizations

The days of being confined to static visuals are over. Our in-article interactive viewers let readers delve into the data with helpful functions such as zoom, configurable display options and full screen mode.

Cite your research data

Get credit for your work by citing your research data in your article and adding a data reference to the reference list. This ensures you are recognized for the data you shared and/or used in your research. Read the  References  section in your chosen journal’s  Guide for Authors  for more information.

Ready to get started?

If you have yet to publish your research paper, the first step is to find the right journal for your submission and read the  Guide for Authors .

Find a journal by matching paper title and abstract of your manuscript in Elsevier's  JournalFinder opens in new tab/window

Find journal by title opens in new tab/window

Already published? Just view the options for sharing your research data above.

1 Several studies have now shown that making data available for an article increases article citations.