?

Log in

No account? Create an account
General Science Magazines: A Poll - Body by Henson, brain by Seuss. [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Kelly J. Cooper

[ website | KJC Edits - let me edit you! ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

General Science Magazines: A Poll [Jun. 29th, 2009|07:04 pm]
Kelly J. Cooper
[Tags|, ]


I'm looking for one, maybe two General Science Magazines to subscribe to, to keep up with scientific happenings in the world. I'm looking for something like The Week or The Economist for science - brief summaries of new discoveries or changes to thinking, with in-depth articles around a page long, not much more.

Poll #1423004 General Science Magazines

Do you read any general science magazines?

Yes
4(44.4%)
No
5(55.6%)

Which are your favorite?

21st Century Science and Technology
0(0.0%)
American Scientist
0(0.0%)
Cosmos
0(0.0%)
Discover Magazine
0(0.0%)
Earth (was Geotimes)
0(0.0%)
Issues in Science and Technology
0(0.0%)
National Geographic
1(10.0%)
Natural History
0(0.0%)
Nature
0(0.0%)
New Scientist
0(0.0%)
Popular Science
0(0.0%)
Science Magazine
0(0.0%)
Science News
0(0.0%)
Scientific American
0(0.0%)
Seed
0(0.0%)
Smithsonian Magazine
0(0.0%)


If your favorite isn't listed here, please add it to the comments.

I'd also like to know why it's your favorite.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: selkiechick
2009-06-29 11:15 pm (UTC)
I decided not to vote, because I don't subscribe to any of these. My relatives do, and I tend to read them on holidays. I still love National Geographic, but I find many of their articles "lighter" thank I might like, particularly in regards to history and archaeology (but I am jaded on these subjects). I always find something interesting to read in Smithsomian, though.

Edited at 2009-06-29 11:15 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gothtique
2009-06-29 11:19 pm (UTC)
I stole a bunch of back issues of Seed from my mother.
It is a beautiful publication... but not nearly as interesting as I had hoped.
The graphics are great though.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: rmd
2009-06-29 11:21 pm (UTC)
i have, in the past, subscribed to various magazines. but they would accumulate faster than i'd read them and the piles of unread magazines would taunt me, so i stopped subscribing.

i listed the ones i am most likely to pick up in a waiting room or other place with a pile of magazines. i forgot to click "smithsonian", but that one too.

discover, natgeo, smithsonian, and nature are usually good bets for a couple of articles that interest me in every issue.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kjc
2009-06-29 11:24 pm (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I'd like to get just ONE and supplement with reading online science news. I've let a lot of magazine subs lapse for this same reason.

I find that I do regularly read the WEEK, and I like that glimpse of a news roundup on hot issues as well as glimpses of high profile stuff from around the world. There's room for one more news mag in my brain, I think.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: metagnat
2009-06-30 01:34 pm (UTC)
Also, New Scientist is available as an online-only subscription. I've been considering subscribing to it, myself, on that basis.

-E
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: i_leonardo
2009-06-30 12:05 am (UTC)
skip the magazines and check out http://www.sciencedaily.com/. it covers all aspects of science in manageable chunks and doesn't pile up on the sofa.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: muffyjo
2009-06-30 01:07 am (UTC)
Oooh! This is a great idea!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: metagnat
2009-06-30 01:37 pm (UTC)
Wow. It might have good information, but that site is hard to look at for me. The giant pile of words all seem to blend together.

-E
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: muffyjo
2009-06-30 01:06 am (UTC)
There wasn't an option for "occasionally". I don't often have a chance but I do love the National Geographic (and a relative works there so I feel a certain brand loyalty) and Scientific American.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: roozle
2009-06-30 01:08 am (UTC)
I don't subscribe to any of these, but I've dipped into most of them at one point or another and I checked the two that I'd subscribe to if I were trying to do what you're trying to do, which I interpret as requiring breadth, timeliness, and a minimum of exclamation points.
(Reply) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: kjc
2009-06-30 03:38 am (UTC)
*grin*

Nah, being broke again has made it MUCH easier to let go of magazine subscriptions.

Being a packrat means it's really REALLY hard to give them away or recycle them, but I'm not kickin' my own ass over it all.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: rmd
2009-06-30 09:22 am (UTC)
i haven't been a subscriber in years, but i think of "science news" as covering a good wide variety of stuff.

i guess it depends on what you're looking for.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lillibet
2009-06-30 03:16 am (UTC)
I subscribed to New Scientist for a year and found that I never read anything but New Scientist. Plus, for me it's more about the astrophysics than I actually care. I find that having their headlines on my LJ page works very well.

I subscribed to Smithsonian and really loved that and forget why I stopped. I should do that again.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: catness
2009-06-30 03:21 am (UTC)
Really, I only read National Geographic for the pictures. :)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kjc
2009-06-30 03:39 am (UTC)
*laughs*
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)