One of the things I picked up from the hallway tables at Sigma Xi during the ScienceOnline2010 meeting were four latest issues of the American Scientist:
Now that I found a moment to sift through them a little bit, I got reminded why I think (and always thought) this is currently the best popular science magazine. Others have closed doors, or gradually declined, or went all sensationalist. But American Scientist keeps on publishing Good Stuff. I really need to support them, so, I promise that today I will subscribe to the print edition.
- Log in to post comments
OK, done. Subscribed.
Your first issue should arrive in May. Don't ask me why it will take so long.
You mean, May 11th?
"Now that I found a moment to sift through them a little bit, I got reminded why I think (and always thought) this is currently the best popular science magazine."
This depends on what your target audience is. Ideally, a popular scince magazine should provide both long and short articles; brief news items and in-depth articles. Also the writing should be carefully written so it is accessible for non-specialists without being oversimplified. This part is probably the hardest.
Personally I regard the British weekly "New Scientist" to be the best, since it manages the hard optimal balance between conflicting requirements. The "letters" page is very informative and the graphics are first-class.
That is exactly what AmSci provides. And I am already on record stating that The New Scientist is the worst of the worst there is, a piece of sensationalist crap edited by a strange collection of some of the nastiest specimens of journalistic curmudgeons.