Best Scientific Magazines

[William_Thompson]

What are the best and most popular scientific magazines?

[Candy]

Scientic American

LOVE THE AVATAR!

[Enzp]

I like popular mags like Scientific AMerican, National Geographic. And I enjoy Science News which comes out weekly. But you are probably more interested in mags like Science or Nature. Then there are very popular mags like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. haven't read them in years, but they are still on the news stand. Discover might still be around. I occasionally read AMerican Scientist, and there are other less widely distributed mags like it. Go to your local Barnes and Noble and look at the mag rack. Go to your local library, or even college library.

The supply of prefessional journals is endless.

[jkmccrann]

I enjoy the easy-to-read nature of New Scientist, and also Scientific American & National Geographic for going more in-depth, and with National Geographic, the strong cultural component it brings to the table gives it added interest for me at least.

[Candy]

I enjoy the easy-to-read nature of New Scientist, and also Scientific American & National Geographic for going more in-depth, and with National Geographic, the strong cultural component it brings to the table gives it added interest for me at least.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

[jkmccrann]

In terms of National Geographic I suppose you're referring to. I've read National Geographic since I was 3, and along with the articles in there that have a scientific component, and we could be talking about a feature on Mars or perhaps an insight into the avian flu for instance, they also have articles about various regions of the world from a socio-geo-political angle if you will.

I remember one of my favourite articles in the National Geographic occured about 13-14 years ago, just after the break-up of the old USSR. It was an article concentrating on the little Caucasian republic we call Georgia (that as recently as December 2003 underwent a `People's Revolution' to break-free of the remnants of post-Soviet rule, Mikhail Sakashvili(spelling?) I believe was the driving force behind this revolution to supplant the Soviet-era President (& ex Soviet Foreign Minister in the 1980s) Eduard Shevardnaze(spelling?).

Anyway, going back to the article in the National Geographic, it accurately and in an easy-to-read way spelt out the various forces competing for influence in Georgia at the time. Secessionist tendencies are strong in at least 3 parts of Georgia (South Ossetia - whose Northen neighbour in Russia, North Ossetia is where the Beslan massacre of last year occured, Abkhazia - which has actually been a Russian protectorate for the past 10 years after breaking free of Georgian influence, although its officially recognised as a part of Georgia, there are no Georgian troops or institutions there only Russian ones, including a sizeable Russian base with a battalion of Russian troops, and Adjaria - a smaller region of Georgia bordering the Black Sea & Turkey, that also has secessionist tendencies but not the economic, military or sheer will to really do anything about it.

All that might not mean a lot to you, but I find it very interesting to observe and sometimes partake in the geo-political machinations of potentially unstable areas of the world, and I find that apart from anything else it was the articles in the National Geographic that led to me to acquire that interest at some time many years ago.

In a final comment on the Caucasus, primarily Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Russian portion of the North Caucasus, it is one of the most unstable areas in the world with a multitude of ethnic groups in the area chafing under the rule of different ethnic groups, and its sad to say, but I would foresee little prospects for improvement in the area any time soon, one of the main reasons for that being the discovery of huge amounts of oil in the Caspian Sea, its simply to valuable an area to be left to its own devices with all that black gold sloshing around the area.

[Candy]

Can you provide a link, because I don't believe a word you say?

[Candy]

Oh yeah, I got your back Jkmccrann. I'm going to ride you until morning.

[jkmccrann]

Give me a minute, a word about which part of that exactly?

That the National Geographic does such articles?, or about the Caucasus in general? I can list of some of the North Caucasian republics that have issues (mainly with Muslim extremists and primarily centred on Chechnya), Dagestan, Ingushetia (which used to be incorporated with Chechnya), Kalbardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia?

I'll look for a link, I can tell you now, that whole area is a patchwork of different ethnicities. Hang On. :)

[jkmccrann]

Here's a start, though this is a very spartan map, haven't read the page yet, but have a look.

http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?caucasus_profile_northcau.html

[Candy]

Okay, Jkmccrann.

[jkmccrann]

Here's another one.

http://www.fragilecologies.com/img/caucasus.jpg

[Candy]

Thank you, jkmccrann.

[jkmccrann]

Oops, I did get his name wrong, its actually Mikheil Saakashvili according to the Columbia Law School, but check out what happened in Georgia here. It was actually called the `Rose Revolution'

http://www.law.columbia.edu/intl/intl_students/m_saakashvili

hang on, i'll find something about the Russian troops in Abkhazia. They've been there for years, they have a base in Sukhumi (Abkhaz Capital).

[Candy]

What's a matter? You all dried up, jkmccrann?

[Candy]

Thank you.

[jkmccrann]

This is the English site of that famous Russian newspaper, Pravda. It i s a couple of years old, but it does indicate what a murky area of the world that is.

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/2001/08/24/13266.html

[jkmccrann]

Going back to 1997, Russian troops were already there, on Georgian territory.

http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/programs/globalpartnerships/securityandterrorism/coalition/regionalrelations/OtherPubs/Kakabadze.htm

THis is from a respected American Institution.

[Candy]

You have more to offer, don't you? I know you do...

[jkmccrann]

Going back to less than a year ago, the Russians were still apparently sending troops into the area.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/10/mil-041016-rferl04.htm

I do apologise for this topic going off-course, but Ill always defend myself if I'm challenged.

Trying to get it back on-topic, best purely Scientific magazines are for me Scientific American, it goes in-depth in detail and really allows one to learn about a subject and come away with a much deeper appreciation and understanding of a topic, and New Scientist because its basically a tabloid science magazine that you can pick up on the way home, read on the train, and if there's anything in there that really piques your interest you can then go and find out more about the topic perhaps online or perhaps in a more comprehensive publication.

For me, they both have their place.

[Candy]

And this would be the Best Scientic Magazine related...back on topic, please...

[Swift]

I would be hard pressed to give a single "best". It depends on are we talking best for the reader or the writer, what the audience is (general population or particular technical community), etc. One of my favorites for just keeping up generally is Science News. But they don't publish much (any?) original research, it is more of a review. American Scientist is also very good, but has a fairly limited circulation.

Scientific American, Discovery, Nature, and Science are probably the most widely recognized.

[ToSeek]

Science News - Newsletter-size weekly, good for a quick overview of the latest developments. Possibly my single favorite subscription - I've been getting it since 1969.

New Scientist - Magazine-size weekly, good for an overview but goes more into depth. Can tend to the sensationalistic, though - likes to tout fringe developments with more enthusiasm than they may warrant.

Scientific American - Used to be very solid and technical, but a lot of people have said that it's gone downhill over the past few years.

Discover - Decent but very layman-oriented. Most of the above are geared more for scientists trying to keep up with their peers.

Popular Science - Even more lowbrow than Discover. Mixes in a lot of technology as well, as I recall.

[Theunknownbook]

I would be hard pressed to give a single "best". It depends on are we talking best for the reader or the writer...


I'll say the reader...

[Theunknownbook]

Can anyone give an opinion on this one? either good or bad


http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm

[peteshimmon]

Sky & Telescope before the format change eight or nine years ago!

[ToSeek]

Can anyone give an opinion on this one? either good or bad


http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm

That's more of a political magazine than a science magazine.

[weatherc]

Science News - Newsletter-size weekly, good for a quick overview of the latest developments. Possibly my single favorite subscription - I've been getting it since 1969.

New Scientist - Magazine-size weekly, good for an overview but goes more into depth. Can tend to the sensationalistic, though - likes to tout fringe developments with more enthusiasm than they may warrant.

Scientific American - Used to be very solid and technical, but a lot of people have said that it's gone downhill over the past few years.

Discover - Decent but very layman-oriented. Most of the above are geared more for scientists trying to keep up with their peers.

Popular Science - Even more lowbrow than Discover. Mixes in a lot of technology as well, as I recall.
I have to agree with you about all of these (except Science News, which I've never read). New Scientist will latch onto some discovery (such as quantum teleportation), and talk about it as if we'll be beaming to London next week. Scientific American and Discover are both becoming more and more political, which is a trend that I despise in scientific publications; if I want to get a dose of Bush-bashing, I'll listen to Air America, thank you. Popular Science is similar to New Scientist, and is only something I'll read when I know I'll be stuck at an airport for a while; it can have some okay content, but it's too dumbed down and sensational for my taste.

[William_Thompson]

LOVE THE AVATAR!

They are real (http://www.gelsana.com/images/large_format.jpg).
They are family (http://www.gelsana.com/images/image017.jpg).
It is better then the old Avatar, huh?

[Theunknownbook]

That's more of a political magazine than a science magazine.

yeah, it looks kind of controversial, but I didn't have an opportunity to read one of their issues, thanks for the feedback ToSeek

[TheBlackCat]

I have to agree with you about all of these (except Science News, which I've never read). New Scientist will latch onto some discovery (such as quantum teleportation), and talk about it as if we'll be beaming to London next week. ... Popular Science is similar to New Scientist, and is only something I'll read when I know I'll be stuck at an airport for a while; it can have some okay content, but it's too dumbed down and sensational for my taste.
Popular Mechanics is the same way, only it seems far worse than Popular Science to me. I just got fed up with it and stopped reading them altogether.

[aurora]

Another magazine that I like alot is Mercury, which is the publication of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

I subscribe to both Astronomy and Sky & Telescope, and generally read both.

Here's another vote for Science News. And Scientific American.

Another that hasn't been mentioned is Smithsonian. Which is more general than a pure science magazine. But I like it, and it is inexpensive.

[Theunknownbook]

Another magazine that I like alot is Mercury, which is the publication of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

I subscribe to both Astronomy and Sky & Telescope, and generally read both.

Here's another vote for Science News. And Scientific American.

Another that hasn't been mentioned is Smithsonian. Which is more general than a pure science magazine. But I like it, and it is inexpensive.


yep, 6.99 for a 1 year subscription is not that bad

[William_Thompson]

OK, here is my list:

Nature
Science
Science News
American Scientist
Discovery
Popular Science
New Scientist
Sky & Telescope
Mercury
Astronomy
Smithsonian

[Matthew]

New Scientist for me. Though I haven't read much of Scientific America (we do have it down under). The astronomy mags have too much advertising in them for my liking.

[TheBlackCat]

OK, here is my list:

Nature
Science
Science News
American Scientist
Discovery
Popular Science
New Scientist
Sky & Telescope
Mercury
Astronomy
Smithsonian
Please tell me you do not have a subscription to Nature and Science.

[mahesh]

Scientific American
Astronomy
Sky + Telescope
.....my favourites

[LurchGS]

I used to read S&T- before and after the format change..n ot really sure why I stopped.

Scientific American - can't stand it any more... any more than I can listen to "classical music" stations - dummed way down, with all the odd little bits left out.

These days, I don't read many scientific journals - time doesn't permit. When I do get time to indulge, that's what the internet is for.

[Eta C]

I'll agree with most of the opinions here, especially To Seek's. I haven't read Scientific American much lately, but I used to find it the most in-depth of the magazines for the non-specialist. New Scientist is OK but as many have pointed out, it's taken a bent for the spectacular. Unfortunately, this puts it just above Popular Mechanics and Popular Science. Sadly, on many items (isomer power, cold fusion, etc) these two magazines are just a notch above the Weekly World News. Me, I get most of my general purpose science news from Physics Today. While intended for the physics community, it is written in a way that anyone with a technical background can comprehend. That, and it lays out new discoveries in a manner that maintains the excitement, but keeps everything in perspective.

[Taks]

i really need to start cancelling my magazine subscriptions since i have too many between home and work...

off and on, i've liked sci am, but it has gone down hill. i have not subscribed for a few years, nor do i intend to pick it back up.

i actually love discover, but just because of the useless trivia it contains. sometimes it hits on a good ATM type topic (the one about the concept of time was great). also, my uncle reads it (i buy his subscription as an xmas gift every year), which gives us something to talk about when we see each other.

at work, not really science, but technology, i have probably a dozen or so coming in. RF Design, RF & Microwaves, Electronic Design, Military and Aerospace, etc... i think they're actually all published by the same company, but i don't care. they're all good, with decent tech and emerging science in electronics.

at home, in the tech department, i get the IEEE spectrum which is pretty good. it is science, actually. one recent article was about the elevator to space, for example. lots of good stuff, but even in this one a bit of politicking creeps in from time to time (if another engineer mentions unionizing i'll start screaming). i get several others, from my societies (signal processing and aerospace), but they're really journals with papers in them. the signal processing magazine is great, very technical, and no commercialization/politicking, but very geared towards my career, not general at all.

ok, too much rambling. i'll sign off noting that i also get skiing magazine, which i intend to do in about 8 hours. :)

taks

[Dr Nigel]

Hmm .. interesting thread.

I consider Nature and Science to be closer to technical journals than to actual magazines. I favour New Scientist (some of you may have noticed I sometimes regurgitate or paraphrase bits of NS articles) for magazine -style reading. I used to like Scientific American, but found it didn't go into enough depth to be thoroughly satisfying, particularly when covering parts of my own area of interest (I'm a biochemist). Nice graphics in SciAm, though.

I used occasionally to read Astronomy Now, but not often enough to really judge its quality.

[peteshimmon]

I was always a fan of The Amateur Scientist by
Stong in Sci Am. I read they whole canon is
now available on cdrom. And the installations
described in the Amateur Telescope Making
section of Sky & Telescope made me green!

[fossilnut2]

As a kid I grew up on Science Digest. It used to come in a small compact form and a subscription was on the list of Christmas presents each year.

I agree with some of the knocks on Scientific American. I still read it faithfully but either I'm a lot smarter or S.A. has dumbed down a bit over the years. There are, however, still some A-1 articles each edition.

I'm within walking distance of 2 librairies in my city and take a handful of science mags out a couple times a month. I usually tuck a copy of Mad Magazine in with them.

[trinitree88]

My list is:Science News...never miss it
Scientific American
Astronomy
Sky & Tel.
Nature
Science
Air & Space
Smithsonian
American Scientist
Physics Today
Quantum..not too often

As a classroom teacher, teaching students to read regularly if they're planning a science career, to stay current, is an important skill. If they're going to college, they should check Science Citation Index, to find the most often quoted papers of their instructors. Egos being what they are, most instructors will at some time bring up their favorite research topic. If as a student you are already knowledgeable in that area...you're golden. Just don't let them know you looked it up ahead of time.:silenced: Ciao. Pete.

[Big Brother Dunk]

As the layest of lay-persons, I appreciate the approach of Discover magazine. I like Astronomy and Sky & Telescope, and I also like SkyNews magazine, the Canadian publication because of its Canadian perspective.