Skip to main content

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.

Advertisement

Scientific Reports
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. scientific reports
  3. articles
  4. article
A cross-sectional analysis of male versus female flourishing among 202,898 participants across 22 countries on 73 variables in the global flourishing study
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 22 February 2026

A cross-sectional analysis of male versus female flourishing among 202,898 participants across 22 countries on 73 variables in the global flourishing study

  • Tim Lomas1,2,
  • R. Noah Padgett1,2,
  • Meg A. Warren3,
  • Byron R. Johnson4 &
  • …
  • Tyler J. VanderWeele1,2,5 

Scientific Reports , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

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.

Subjects

  • Psychology
  • Sociology

Abstract

A prominent debate in modern society is how males or females are faring relative to each other. Despite a vast literature, most research is constrained by two issues: a limited conceptualization and assessment of what it means to do well; and a relatively narrow, often Western-centric coverage. To address these issues, this paper examines male-female differences on 73 items relating to all aspects of wellbeing in the Global Flourishing Study, with data from 202,898 participants across 22 countries. When organizing the items into six domains according to VanderWeele’s flourishing framework, females do slightly better on three (happiness and satisfaction, social relationship quality, and meaning and purpose), and males on two (self-rated health, and financial and material security), and with character/virtue equal. While all domains are weighted equally, since females are only marginally higher on three, whereas the gaps on the two male-led ones are much bigger, males fare slightly better on an overall flourishing index. There is also considerable country-level variation throughout the findings however, showing these general trends are not universal but contingent on local socio-cultural dynamics.

Data availability

Data that support the findings of this article (Wave 1 non-sensitive Global data) are openly available on the Open Science Framework ([https://www.cos.io/gfs-access-data]), being available from February 2024 - March 2026 via preregistration and publicly from then onwards. Subsequent waves of the GFS will similarly be made available.

Code availability

Code in multiple software is openly available in an online repository49 for the demographic variation and childhood predictor analyses (https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/vbype).

References

  1. Pilgrim, D. Identity politics: The sex/gender controversy is unusual but not unique. Arch. Sex. Behav. 53(7), 2431–2443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02894-6 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. Gender and Health, World Health Organization, May 21, Accessed: Feb. 14, 2025. [Online]. (2021). Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/gender-and-health

  3. Addis, M. E. & Mahalik, J. R. Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking.. Am. Psychol. 58(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.5 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Connell, R. W. Masculinities (Routledge, 2005). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003116479

  5. Connell, R. W. & Messerschmidt, J. W. Hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Courtenay, W. H. Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Soc. Sci. Med. 50(10), 1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00390-1 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Marlar, J. Asking Inclusive Questions About Gender: Phase 1, Gallup Methodology Blog, May 10, Accessed: Feb. 18, 2025. [Online]. (2023). Available: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/methodology/505664/asking-inclusive-questions-gender-phase.aspx

  8. Marlar, J. Measuring Transgender Identities: Phase 3, Gallup Methodology Blog, Dec. 14, 2023. Accessed: Feb. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/methodology/547223/measuring-transgender-identities-phase.aspx

  9. Marlar, J. & Willcoxon, N. Measuring Diverse Gender Identities: Phase 2, Gallup Methodology Blog, Aug. Accessed: Feb. 18, 2025. [Online]. (2023). Available: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/methodology/509843/measuring-diverse-gender-identities-phase.aspx

  10. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466(7302), 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Makara, J., Cain, R., Glock, L., Ioerger, M. & Holliday, S. Barriers to correct pronoun usage in healthcare settings. BMC Med. Educ. 24(1), 1056. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06032-7 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  12. World Health Organization. Depressive disorder (depression), World Health Organization, Mar. 31, 2023. Accessed: Feb. 16, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression

  13. World Health Organization. Anxiety disorders, World Health Organization, Sep. 27, Accessed: Feb. 16, 2025. [Online]. (2023). Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/anxiety-disorders

  14. Yang, X. et al. Global, regional and national burden of anxiety disorders from 1990 to 2019: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Epidemiol. Psychiatr Sci. 30, e36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000275 (May 2021).

  15. Patil, P. A., Porche, M. V., Shippen, N. A., Dallenbach, N. T. & Fortuna, L. R. Which girls, which boys? The intersectional risk for depression by race and ethnicity, and gender in the U.S.. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 66, 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.12.003 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Merodio, G., de Martínez Ortiz Zárate, A., Zhu, F. & Morentin-Encina, J. The impact of gendered ageism and related intersectional inequalities on the health and well-being of older women. Research on Ageing and Social Policy 12(2), 146–165. https://doi.org/10.17583/rasp.15017 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  17. de la Arias- Torre, J., Vilagut, G., Martín, V., Molina, A. J. & Alonso, J. Prevalence of major depressive disorder and association with personal and socio-economic factors. Results for Spain of the European Health Interview Survey 2014–2015. J. Affect. Disord. 239, 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.06.051 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  18. EHRC, Equality and human rights commission triennial review 2010: Equality, human rights and good relations in 2010. Equality and Human Rights Commission, (2010).

  19. Crenshaw, K. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stan. L. Rev. 43, 1241 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Erhart, M., Müller, D., Gellert, P. & O’Sullivan, J. L. Mapping intersectional sociodemographic inequalities in measurement and prevalence of depressive symptoms: A intersectional multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy using data from a population-based nationwide survey in Germany. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 173, 111446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111446 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kessler, R. C. Epidemiology of women and depression. J. Affect. Disord. 74(1), 5–13 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nolen-Hoeksema, S. Gender differences in depression. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 10(5), 173–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00142 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zajac, I. T. et al. Suicide risk, psychological distress and treatment preferences in men presenting with prototypical, externalising and mixed depressive symptomology. J. Ment. Health 31(3), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2020.1755026 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  24. CDC. Suicide Data and Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, Oct. 24, 2024. Accessed: Feb. 16, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/data.html

  25. Karaye, I. M., Maleki, N., Hassan, N. & Yunusa, I. Trends in alcohol-related deaths by sex in the US, 1999–2020. JAMA Netw. Open 6(7), e2326346. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.26346 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zandt, F. Violent Crime: Women with Low Offender, Equal Victim Share, Statistica, Sep. 13, Accessed: Feb. 16, 2025. [Online]. (2024). Available: https://www.statista.com/chart/33058/victims-and-perpetrators-of-reported-violent-crime-in-the-us-by-reported-sex/

  27. Addis, M. E. Gender and depression in men.. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 15(3), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2008.00125.x (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  28. VanderWeele, T. J. On the promotion of human flourishing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114(31), 8148–8156. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702996114 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lomas, T. et al. The development of the Global Flourishing Study questionnaire: Charting the evolution of a new 109-item inventory of human flourishing. BMC Global Public. Health. 3 (30). https://doi.org/10.1186/s44263-025-00139-9 (2025).

  30. Weziak-Biaaowolska, D., McNeely, E. & VanderWeele, T. Flourish index and secure flourish index development and validation. SSRN Electron. J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3145336 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Weziak-Bialowolska, D. et al. Psychometric properties of flourishing scales from a comprehensive well-being assessment. Front. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.652209 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Höltge, J. et al. A systems perspective on human flourishing: Exploring cross-country similarities and differences of a multisystemic flourishing network. J. Posit. Psychol. 18(5), 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2022.2093784 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Diener, E. Subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 95 (3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Batz, C. & Tay, L. Gender differences in subjective well-being, in Handbook of well-being, (eds Diener, E., Oishi, S. & Tay, L.) DEF, 358–372. (2018).

  35. Lomas, T. Global sex-based wellbeing differences in the Gallup World Poll: Males do better on more metrics, but females do better on the ones that matter most. J. Posit. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2025.2587059 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kahneman, D. & Deaton, A. High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107(38), 16489–16493. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011492107 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Carlton, S., Harrison, A., Honoré, S. & Goodmon, L. B. Conceal, don’t feel: Gender differences in implicit and explicit expressions of emotions. Mod. Psychol. Stud. 25(1), 10 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Meisenberg, G. & Woodley, M. A. Gender differences in subjective well-being and their relationships with gender equality. J. Happiness Stud. 16(6), 1539–1555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9577-5 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Thalmayer, A. G., Toscanelli, C. & Arnett, J. J. The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American?. Am. Psychol. 76(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hendriks, T. et al. How WEIRD are positive psychology interventions? A bibliometric analysis of randomized controlled trials on the science of well-being. J. Posit. Psychol. 14(4), 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1484941 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lomas, T. Making waves in the Great Ocean: A historical perspective on the emergence and evolution of wellbeing scholarship. J. Posit. Psychol. 17(2), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.2016900 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  42. VanderWeele, T. J. et al. The Global Flourishing Study and initial results. Nat. Mental Health. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-025-00423-5 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Johnson, B. R. et al. The Global Flourishing Study. Preprint available at (2024). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3JTZ8.

  44. Ritter, Z. et al. Global Flourishing Study methodology. Gallup Inc., Accessed: Jul. 10, 2024. [Online]. Available: Preprint (2024). available at: https://osf.io/k2s7u]

  45. Crabtree, S., English, C., Johnson, B. R., Ritter, Z. & VanderWeele, T. J. Global Flourishing Study: Questionnaire Development Report (Gallup Inc., 2021).

  46. Cowden, R. G., Skinstad, D., Lomas, T., Johnson, B. R. & VanderWeele, T. J. Measuring wellbeing in the Global Flourishing Study: Insights from a cross-national analysis of cognitive interviews from 22 countries. Qual. Quant. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-01947-1 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Markham, L. et al. Global Flourishing Study: Wave 1 Codebook, Preprint available at: (2024). https://osf.io/7uj6y/.

  48. Padgett, R. N. et al. Survey sampling design in wave 1 of the Global Flourishing Study. Eur. J. Epidemiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-024-01167-9 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Padgett, R. N. et al. Global Flourishing Study statistical analyses code. Center Open. Science, (2024).

  50. Padgett, R. N. et al. Analytic methodology for demographic variation analyses for wave 1 of the Global Flourishing Study. Preprint available at. (3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s44263-025-00142-0 (2024).

  51. VanderWeele, T. J., Mathur, M. B. & Chen, Y. Outcome-wide longitudinal designs for causal inference: A new template for empirical studies. Stat. Sci. 35 (3). https://doi.org/10.1214/19-STS728 (Aug. 2020).

  52. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. & Simonsohn, U. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol. Sci. 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lumley, T. Analysis of complex survey samples. J. Stat. Softw. 9 (1), 1–19 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 1(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 8(4), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00156 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sterne, J. A. C. et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: Potential and pitfalls. BMJ 338(jun29 1), b2393–b2393. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2393 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  57. van Buuren, S. Flexible Imputation of Missing Data, Second. (2023). https://stefvanbuuren.name/fimd/.

  58. Forum, W. E. Global Gender Gap Report World Economic Forum, Jun. 2023. Accessed: Feb. 28, 2025. [Online]. (2023). Available: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2023.pdf

  59. Ryff, C. D. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being.. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Martela, F. & Steger, M. F. The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. J. Posit. Psychol. 11(5), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kimmel, M. S. The contemporary ‘crisis’ of masculinity in historical perspective. In The Making of Masculinities (ed. Brod, H.) 121–153 (Routledge, 2018).

  62. DiPrete, T. A. & Buchmann, C. The rise of women: The growing gender gap in education and what it means for American schools (Russell Sage Foundation, 2013).

  63. The Economist. Why are girls still falling behind in maths? The Economist, Jun. 11, Accessed: Jun. 15, 2025. [Online]. (2025). Available: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2025/06/11/why-are-girls-still-falling-behind-in-maths

  64. Martinot, P. et al. Rapid emergence of a maths gender gap in first grade. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09126-4 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  65. World Economic Forum. Global Gender Gap Report 2025 INSIGHT REPORT (World Economic Forum, 2025).

  66. Rosin, H. Men Are Obsolete, TIME, Jan. 02, Accessed: Feb. 28, 2025. [Online]. (2014). Available: https://time.com/179/men-are-obsolete/

  67. Lomas, T. Critical positive masculinity. Masculinities Soc. Change 2(2), 167–193 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Warren, M. A., Bordoloi, S. D. & Warren, M. T. Good for the goose and good for the gander: Examining positive psychological benefits of male allyship for men and women. Psychol. Men Masculinities. 22 (4), 723–731 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Chapman, G. The five love languages: How to express heartfelt commitment to your mate (Moody, 2009).

  70. Barreto, M. et al. Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness. Pers. Individ. Dif. 169, 110066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110066 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Oshio, T. Which is more relevant for perceived happiness, individual-level or area-level social capital? A multilevel mediation analysis. J. Happiness Stud. 18(3), 765–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9752-y (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ortner, S. B. Patriarchy. Feminist Anthropol. 3(2), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1002/fea2.12081 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  73. UNICEF. Global annual results report 2022: Gender Equality (UNICEF, 2023).

  74. Setyorini, S., Rahayu, D. S., Septiana, N. Z. & Rahayu, R. ‘Defying the odds: Can women truly thrive in a patriarchal world?,’. J. Public Health 46(4), e711–e712. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdae238 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Trzebiatowska, M. & Bruce, S. Why are women more religious than men? (Oxford University Press, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Penny, G., Francis, L. J. & Robbins, M. Why are women more religious than men? Testing the explanatory power of personality theory among undergraduate students in Wales. Ment. Health, Relig. Cult. 18(6), 492–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2015.1079603 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Russell, S. T. & Fish, J. N. Mental health in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 12(1), 465–487. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093153 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Yarns, B. C., Abrams, J. M., Meeks, T. W. & Sewell, D. D. The mental health of older LGBT adults. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 18(6), 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0697-y (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Pinna, F. et al. Mental health in transgender individuals: A systematic review. Int. Rev. Psychiatry. 34, 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2022.2093629 (May 2022).

  80. Dalton, D. & Ortegren, M. Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. J. Bus. Ethics 103(1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0843-8 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The Global Flourishing Study was generously funded by the John Templeton Foundation (#61665), Templeton Religion Trust (#1308), Templeton World Charity Foundation (#0605), Well-Being for Planet Earth, Fetzer Institute (#4354), Well Being Trust, Paul L. Foster Family Foundation, and the David & Carol Myers Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations. The funding sources had no impact on the study design; on the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; on the writing of the manuscript; or on the decision to submit the article for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    Tim Lomas, R. Noah Padgett & Tyler J. VanderWeele

  2. Human Flourishing Program, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Tim Lomas, R. Noah Padgett & Tyler J. VanderWeele

  3. College of Business and Economics, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, USA

    Meg A. Warren

  4. Institute for Studies of Religion, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA

    Byron R. Johnson

  5. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Boston, MA, USA

    Tyler J. VanderWeele

Authors
  1. Tim Lomas
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Noah Padgett
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meg A. Warren
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Byron R. Johnson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tyler J. VanderWeele
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.J.V. and B.R.J. led the overall study of which this paper reports a subset of results. T.L. conceptualized, designed, and planned the paper, in collaboration with all authors. R.N.P. led the analyses and prepared all the tables and figures. T.L. wrote the first draft and subsequent revisions. All authors provided feedback of the various drafts of the manuscript, helped edit and refine the text, and reviewed the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim Lomas.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Tyler J. VanderWeele reports partial ownership and licensing fees from Gloo, Inc. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lomas, T., Padgett, R.N., Warren, M.A. et al. A cross-sectional analysis of male versus female flourishing among 202,898 participants across 22 countries on 73 variables in the global flourishing study. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40963-z

Download citation

  • Received: 05 August 2025

  • Accepted: 17 February 2026

  • Published: 22 February 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40963-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

Keywords

  • Wellbeing
  • Flourishing
  • Sex
  • Gender
  • Male
  • Female
Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on X
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • About Scientific Reports
  • Contact
  • Journal policies
  • Guide to referees
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editor's Choice
  • Journal highlights
  • Open Access Fees and Funding

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Scientific Reports (Sci Rep)

ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

nature.com sitemap

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing

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

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing