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
Effects of sensory IEQ comfort on employees’ indoor satisfaction and well-being in overall office spaces: a multi-group SEM approach
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 23 March 2026

Effects of sensory IEQ comfort on employees’ indoor satisfaction and well-being in overall office spaces: a multi-group SEM approach

  • Weijie Fang1 &
  • Shaojie Shen1 

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

  • 563 Accesses

  • 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.

Subjects

  • Business and management
  • Environmental social sciences
  • Psychology

Abstract

Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) in office settings plays a critical role in occupant satisfaction and well-being, directly influencing health, productivity, and overall quality of life. Current research, however, lacks an integrated understanding of the mechanisms linking sensory IEQ comfort to satisfaction and well-being. Furthermore, many studies overlook the interactive effects of IEQ across different functional spaces, which may lead to biased estimations of IEQ’s impact on well-being. To address these gaps, this study collected 264 valid questionnaires from employees across nine floors in four office buildings. The survey encompassed sensory IEQ Comfort, Total Environmental Comfort Vote (TECV), Work Environmental Satisfaction (WESA), Work Satisfaction (WSA), and Life Satisfaction (LSA). A multi-group Structural Equation Model (SEM) was employed for multi-spatial integrated analysis. The results indicate that Sensory IEQ comfort in Leisure Space (LS) exhibits more significant pathways to LSA compared to Work Space (WS). In both WS and LS, IEQ comfort promotes WESA and WSA primarily through the mediation of TECV; notably, the impact of WESA is more pronounced in LS. WSA serves as a stronger driver of LSA than WESA in the office. The multi-spatial model significantly reduced the effect sizes of independent pathways compared to single-space models, suggesting that neglecting spatial diversity may lead to result errors. Furthermore, computer usage time was identified as a core factor influencing WESA and WSA, and indirectly affecting LSA. This study provides explicit design guidance for optimizing sensory IEQ to enhance occupant well-being and emphasizes the necessity of multi-spatial considerations in office design.

Similar content being viewed by others

A dataset on occupant satisfaction with the indoor environmental quality in Belgian classrooms

Article Open access 08 January 2026

The interplay among environmental sensitivity, job stressors, and leadership styles on employee well-being

Article Open access 09 November 2024

Impact of an intersectoral universal workplace intervention on health related quality of life and wellbeing in a pragmatic cluster randomised trial

Article Open access 29 July 2025

Data availability

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

IEQ:

Indoor environmental quality

WESA:

Work environmental satisfaction

WSA:

Work satisfaction

LSA:

Life satisfaction

WS:

Work space

LS:

Leisure space

CUT:

Computer usage time

TECV:

Total environmental comfort vote

TCV:

Thermal comfort vote

NLCV:

Natural light comfort vote

ALCV:

Artificial light comfort vote

ACV:

Acoustic comfort vote

VCV:

Visual comfort vote

TPV:

Thermal preference vote

LPV:

Light preference vote

APV:

Acoustic preference vote

SWLS:

Satisfaction with life scale

WWR:

Window-to-wall ratio

SEM:

Structural equation model

CB-SEM:

Covariance-based SEM

PLS-SEM:

Variance-based partial least squares SEM

RMC:

Reflectively measured constructs

FMC:

Formatively measured constructs

CFA:

Confirmatory factor analysis

AVE:

Average variance extracted

CR:

Composite reliability

DF:

Degrees of freedom

IFI:

Incremental fit index

CFI:

Comparative fit index

RMSEA:

Root mean square error of approximation

References

  1. Oliveira, J. A. P. Learning how to align climate, environmental and development objectives in cities: Lessons from the implementation of climate co-benefits initiatives in urban Asia. J. Clean. Prod. 58, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.009 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Liu, J. & Fan, B. What contributes to local-level institutional adaptation under climate change? A configurational approach based on evidence from China’s Sponge City Program. J. Environ. Manag. 342, 118292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118292 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Karimi, A., Norouzi, M. & Javanroodi, K. Solar chimney combined with active cooling systems for enhanced indoor comfort and energy efficiency under extreme climates: A data-driven optimization approach. Sol. Energy 300, 113809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2025.113809 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Du, M., Hong, B., Gu, C., Li, Y. & Wang, Y. Multiple effects of visual-acoustic-thermal perceptions on the overall comfort of elderly adults in residential outdoor environments. Energy Build. 283, 112813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.112813 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Felgueiras, F., Mourão, Z., Moreira, A. & Gabriel, M. F. Multi-domain indoor environmental quality and worker health, well-being, and productivity: Objective and subjective assessments in modern office buildings. Build. Environ. 282, 113320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113320 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mauss, D., Jarczok, M. N., Genser, B. & Herr, R. Association of open-plan offices and sick leave—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ind. Health 61, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2022-0053 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Altomonte, S. et al. Ten questions concerning well-being in the built environment. Build. Environ. 180, 106949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106949 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boubekri, M. et al. The impact of optimized daylight and views on the sleep duration and cognitive performance of office workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17(9), 3219. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093219 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hoisington, A. J. et al. Ten questions concerning the built environment and mental health. Build. Environ. 155, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.03.036 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Xuan, X. & Zhang, Z. New perspective of stress on the design characteristics of office indoor restorative environments. J. Build. Eng. 84, 108602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108602 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Parhizkar, H. et al. Objective indoor air quality parameters and their association to respiratory health and well-being among office workers. Build. Environ. 246, 110984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110984 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Blasio, S. D., Shtrepi, L., Puglisi, G. E. & Astolfi, A. A cross-sectional survey on the impact of irrelevant speech noise on annoyance, mental health and well-being, performance and occupants’ behavior in shared and open-plan offices. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16(2), 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020280 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Horr, Y. A. et al. Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature. Build. Environ. 105, 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.06.001 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Colenberg, S., Jylhä, T. & Arkesteijn, M. The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being—A literature review. Build. Res. Inf. 49(3), 352–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1710098 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Boubekri, M., Cheung, L. N., Reid, K., Wang, C.-H. & Zee, P. C. Impact of windows and daylight exposure on overall health and sleep quality of office workers: A casecontrol pilot study. J. Clin. Sleep Med. 10, 603–611. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.3780 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Geng, Y., Ji, W., Lin, B. & Zhu, Y. The impact of thermal environment on occupant IEQ perception and productivity. Build. Environ. 121, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.05.022 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cheung, T., Graham, L. T. & Schiavon, S. Impacts of life satisfaction, job satisfaction and the big five personality traits on satisfaction with the indoor environment. Build. Environ. 212, 108783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.108783 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Arata, S., Sugiuchi, M., Yazawa, R., Funatsu, H. & Kawakubo, S. Effects of perceived office environment on the subjective well-being of workers: Insights from a structural equation modeling analysis. Build. Environ. 267, 112180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.112180 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kent, M. G., Parkinson, T. & Schiavon, S. Indoor environmental quality in WELL-certified and LEED-certified buildings. Sci. Rep. 14, 15120 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Woodworth, D. G. Job-satisfaction and personality: A study of research scientists (University of California, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Veitch, K.E.; Charles, K.E.; Veitch, J.A. Environmental satisfaction in open-plan environments: 2. Effects of workstation size, partition height and windows. National Research Council Canada 2002. https://doi.org/10.4224/20378854

  22. Abedini, K.;Altamirano, H. Assessment of the impact of the office environment on productivity based on employees’ satisfaction. In: Pigliautile, I., Piselli, C., Karunathilake, H.P., Fabiani, C. (eds) Urban Resilience, Livability, and Climate Adaptation. HERL 2023. Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54911-3_6

  23. Burmeister, C. P., Moskaliuk, J. & Cress, U. Office versus leisure environments: Effects of surroundings on concentration. J. Environ. Psychol. 58, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.07.011 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang, Z., Xuan, X., Zheng, Y. & Zhou, N. Restorative perceptions and contribution degree of different types of spaces and design characteristics in office setting. J. Build. Eng. 97, 110786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.110786 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Deng, Z., Dong, B., Guo, X. & Zhang, J. Impact of indoor air quality and multi-domain factors on human productivity and physiological responses: A comprehensive review. Indoor Air https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5584960 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang, X., Du, J. & Chow, D. Association between perceived indoor environmental characteristics and occupants’ mental well-being, cognitive performance, productivity, satisfaction in workplaces: A systematic review. Build. Environ. 246, 110985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110985 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Franke, M. & Nadler, C. Towards a holistic approach for assessing the impact of IEQ on satisfaction, health, and productivity. Build. Res. Inf. 49, 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2020.1788917 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Haynes, B. P. The impact of office comfort on productivity. J. Facil. Manag. 6(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960810847459 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Haynes, B. P. Impact of workplace connectivity on office productivity. J. Corp. Real Estate 10(4), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/14630010810925145 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Fissore, V. I., Fasano, S., Puglisi, G. E., Shtrepi, L. & Astolfi, A. Indoor environmental quality and comfort in offices: A review. Buildings 13(10), 2490. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13102490 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Banbury, S. P. & Berry, D. C. Office noise and employee concentration: Identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics 48(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130412331311390 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rasila, H. & Jylhä, T. The many faces of office noise—Case contact center. Facilities 33(7–8), 454–464. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-11-2013-0085 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Leaman, A. & Bordass, B. Assessing building performance in use 4: The Probe occupant surveys and their implications. Build. Res. Inf. 29(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210010008045 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sakuraya, A. et al. What kind of intervention is effective for improving subjective well-being among workers? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front. Psychol. 11, 528656. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.528656 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jung, D., An, T. & Hong, T. Exploring the relationship between office lighting, cognitive performance, and psychophysiological responses: A multidimensional approach. Build. Environ. 263, 111863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111863 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dwyer, T. Comfort for productivity in offices. Build. Serv. J. 6, 89–91 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Braga, M. P., Niza, I. L. & Broday, E. E. Assessment between indoor environmental quality aspects and productivity in buildings: A systematic literature review. Build. Environ. 278, 112983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112983 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Chang, S. W. & Schiavon, S. Effects of window view attributes on occupants’ view satisfaction: Findings from human-subject experiments evaluating actual window views. Build. Environ. 290, 114164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.114164 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Manu, S. & Rysanek, A. Home as an office: Investigating the associations between indoor environmental quality, well-being, and performance in work-from-home settings. Build. Environ. 283, 113310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113310 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Haynes, B., Suckley, L. & Nunnington, N. Workplace productivity and office type: An evaluation of office occupier differences based on age and gender. J. Corp. Real Estate 19(2), 111–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-11-2016-0037 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tuzcuoğlu, D., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Borgers, A., Arentze, T. & Sungur, A. Differences in preferences for office attributes in hybrid working: Office versus flexible workdays. J. Environ. Psychol. 104, 102587 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  42. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 16814:2019—Indoor Environmental Quality—Methods of Evaluation of Thermal and Air Quality Conditions, 2019.

  43. Torriani, G., Torresin, S., Lara-Ibeas, I., Albatici, R. & Babich, F. Perceived air quality (PAQ) assessment methods in office buildings: A systematic review towards an indoor smellscape approach. Build. Environ. 258, 111645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111645 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hartog, L., Weijs-Perrée, M. & Appel-Meulenbroek, R. The influence of personality on user satisfaction: Multi-tenant offices. Build. Res. Infor. 46(4), 402–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1307015 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hong, S. & Shin, D. Relationship between pain intensity, disability, exercise time and computer usage time and depression in office workers with non-specific chronic low back pain. Med. Hypotheses. 137, 109562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109562 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gao, M., Yan, N. & Smale, B. Moderating effect of leisure satisfaction on the relationship between work-life conflict and life satisfaction. Leisure Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2025.2451286 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Gao, C. & Zhang, S. Inpatient perceptions of design characteristics related to ward environments’ restorative quality. J. Build. Eng. 41, 102410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102410 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Pavot, W., Diener, E. Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. In: Diener, E. (eds) Assessing Well-Being. Social Indicators Research Series, 2009, 39. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_5

  49. Gnecco, V. M., Pigliautile, I. & Pisello, A. L. Exploring office comfort and productivity in living labs: A yearlong structural equation modeling study. Build. Environ. 250, 111147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.111147 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Fukawa, Y. et al. Influence analysis of environmental factors on the subjective well-being of office workers in Japan: A structural equation modeling approach. Build. Environ. 262, 111827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111827 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hair, J. F. et al. Partial least squares structural equation modeling-based discrete choice modeling: An illustration in modeling retailer choice. Bus. Res. 12, 115–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-018-0072-4 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Byrne, B. M. Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema 20, 872–882 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kim, Y. K., Abdou, Y., Abdou, A. & Altan, H. Indoor environmental quality assessment and occupant satisfaction: A post-occupancy evaluation of a UAE university office building. Buildings 12(7), 986. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12070986 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Shin, J. H. Toward a theory of environmental satisfaction and human comfort: A process-oriented and contextually sensitive theoretical framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 45, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.004 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Awada, M. et al. Ten questions concerning the impact of environmental stress on office workers. Build. Environ. 229, 109964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109964 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Altomonte, S., Kaçel, S., Martinez, P. W. & Licina, D. What is NExT? A new conceptual model for comfort, satisfaction, health, and well-being in buildings. Build. Environ. 252, 111234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111234 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Esch, E., Minjock, R., Colarelli, S. M. & Hirsch, S. Office window views: View features trump nature in predicting employee well-being. J. Environ. Psychol. 64, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.05.006 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sedghikhanshir, A., Zhu, Y., Beck, M. R. & Jafari, A. Exploring the impact of green wall and its size on restoration effect and stress recovery using immersive virtual environments. Build. Environ. 262, 111844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111844 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Li, W., Liu, Y. & Li, W. Context matters: Optimal green wall geometry for window views vary with sound conditions. J. Environ. Psychol. 110, 102834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102834 (2026).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Li, J., Chen, S., Xu, H. & Kang, J. Effects of implanted wood components on environmental restorative quality of indoor informal learning spaces in college. Build. Environ. 245, 110890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110890 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Schmidt, C., Collette, F., Cajochen, C. & Peigneux, P. A time to think: Circadian rhythms in human cognition. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 24(7), 755–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290701754158 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Karimi, A., Mohajerani, M., Alinasab, N. & Akhlaghinezhad, F. Integrating machine learning and genetic algorithms to optimize building energy and thermal efficiency under historical and future climate scenarios. Sustainability 16(21), 9324. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219324 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Cheraghzad, T., Zamani, Z., Hakimazari, M., Norouzi, M. & Karimi, A. Multi-objective optimization of a folding photovoltaic-integrated light shelf using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm III for enhanced daylighting and energy savings in office buildings. Buildings 15(16), 2958. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15162958 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lou, H. & Ou, D. A comparative field study of indoor environmental quality in two types of open-plan offices: Open-plan administrative offices and open-plan research offices. Build. Environ. 148, 394–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.11.022 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Tamas, R., Ouf, M. M. & O’Brien, W. A field study on the effect of building automation on perceived comfort and control in institutional buildings. Archit. Sci. Rev. 63, 74–86 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Bae, S. C. S. M. & Asojo, A. O. Indoor environmental quality factors that matter to workplace occupants: An 11-year benchmark study. Build. Res. Inf. 49, 445–459 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Candido, C., Chakraborty, P. & Tjondronegoro, D. The rise of office design in high-performance, open-plan environments. Buildings 9(4), 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9040100 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gold Mantis School of Architecture, Soochow University, Suzhou, 215131, China

    Weijie Fang & Shaojie Shen

Authors
  1. Weijie Fang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shaojie Shen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, W. Fang; Methodology, W. Fang; Software, W. Fang; Validation, S. Shen; Formal analysis, W. Fang; Investigation, W. Fang; Resources, S. Shen; Data curation, W. Fang; Writing—original draft preparation, W. Fang; Writing—review and editing, S. Shen; Visualization, W. Fang; Supervision, S. Shen. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaojie Shen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fang, W., Shen, S. Effects of sensory IEQ comfort on employees’ indoor satisfaction and well-being in overall office spaces: a multi-group SEM approach. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-44300-2

Download citation

  • Received: 04 January 2026

  • Accepted: 10 March 2026

  • Published: 23 March 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-44300-2

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

  • Indoor environmental quality
  • Comfort
  • Work satisfaction
  • Computer usage time
  • Well-being
  • Multi-group SEM
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 footer links

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 Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

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