The Science Creative Quarterly, Year Two - In which Felicity cuts her hair (wait a minute, that can't be right).

Well, this is just a heads up to let you know that the SCQ is preparing to start its year two. For a while, we've only been presenting academic review type pieces, which, to be frank, has just not been good for traffic and the like (what do you think that says about readership?).

And so, on September 5th, we'll revert back to the eclectic mix that the SCQ is admired and loved for, including our great humour pieces which has led to folks sometimes referring to us as the "McSweeney's for Sciencegeeks."

Anyway, if you're interested in participating, here are a few submission types that we are especially interested in culling:

1. This one is pretty new. We'd like to get pieces that reflect on elements of culture that affected you personally as a science type. This could be an event, a person, songs, books - whatever really, but we think it would make intriguing reading. In case, you're wondering, the idea was inspired by the sort of writing induced by Nick Hornby's "Songbook."

2. Hot Science-y Guys: This is one of our most popular sections, and Melissa has agreed to relinquish control. There must be more out there. Know any?

3. We'd like to present more review pieces, since we basically neglected them last year. This, we think, is perfect for the multitude of pre-existing blog entries out there. We'd love to see some come our way, especially if they're creatively inspired. If it helps, the SCQ is not opposed to presenting pieces previously appearing on your blog.

4. Pin-Ups: Just started this one as well. Pretty open really as to what we're looking for - Nude Mice was a good indication of this. We got lots of hits on this one - it makes us smile that these are up on locker rooms somewhere.

In any event, there you have it. If you're stuck for ideas, peruse the following short submission guidelines below. Longer guidelines are here. As well, for the next week and a half or so, the SCQ is presenting a series of lists provided by our most frequent contributors - the first being my own role as the editor.

- - -


Go out on a limb. Don't be afraid to use the words, "Uranus", "friction" and/or "sperm" vicariously.

In your story, it is good to insert either the line "Now, at last, we can save the world!," or "Dear God. What have I done?" For extra conflict, insert both.

Be aware that the majority of the Elements in the Periodical Table end in "ium." This makes rhyming really easy.

Sex, drugs, blood and guts - really now, this is just an invitation to write about mate selection, pharmaceuticals, and anatomy.

When in doubt, chemists are the bad guys, physicists are the good guys, and biologists are generally the ones with the best cleavage.

Bacteria make good antagonists. Plus, they are literally everywhere - this only adds to their aura as an awesome force to be reckon with.

If you plan on using the "=" symbol, please be certain that the two sides are indeed equivalent. If they're not, mathematicians will be irked, which to be honest, means that nothing else will happen.

Try using Boolean logic in your plot lines. Bonus marks if you can also use the word Boolean in your plot line. Extra extra bonus marks if your plot line can be express as a y=mx+b equation.

And finally, for the love of all that is good, please no articles on Scientology.

(please submit your efforts to

More like this

As a Director of a science teaching facility, who sees maybe close to 2000 high schoolers in my lab each year, I'm hoping we can have a good showing in this great DonorsChoose challenge that Janet set up. There's certainly a lot of incentive, ranging from the simple act of promoting science within…
Just wanted to pass on two pieces, the SCQ has been lucky enough to present. They are: THE WIKI HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE IN 200 WORDS OR LESS and TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS EXPLAINED WITH SMURFS The history piece in particular was done by none other than Eric Schulman, who was responsible for "A…
I'm an experimentalists through and through, and have always known better than to attempt real theory. On two occasions, though, I've been forced to do a little bit of computer simulation work in order to interpret my results. One of these was for the time-resolved collisions experiment, and worked…
The other day, I read Shelley's great account of the Challenger explosion, called "The Blight Upon the Sky," and it just got me thinking that I wish there were more outlets for that kind of science writing. By outlets, I do mean those in the print arena, like a magazine here or there that is…