Speaking here as a scientist, I wouldn't. That's for a couple of reasons:
1. They're really, really expensive.
2. They're extremely technical, and you're unlikely to know enough about all the various fields that publish in them to be able to read through them cover to cover. And if you're only reading a single article, why pay that really expensive cost?
3. They have the reputation of publishing what's sexy, not what's necessarily well done. They've published some crappy science over the years just because they'll get a lot of attention for it.
Instead, I'd recommend American Scientist[0], which is today what Scientific American was 30 years ago, while Scientific American has become what Discover was 30 years ago. It's well written for a general audience while still covering a wide range of subjects, and it's reasonably priced.
I agree with #1, although if you're associated with a university, you will most likely have access to it.
I strongly disagree with #2, their news and opinions section is usually top-notch, well written and understandable (e.g. an article about physics is written to be comprehensible for a biologist, who usually has no more knowledge about the matter than any other layman).
#3 might be true, however this even more so for any other, less science-focused, news-outlet, where "sexiness" matters even more to attract a less science minded audience.
American Scientist looks promising, I was so disappointed when Scientific American lowered their standards and simultaneously became obsessed with climate change coverage at the expense of the previous diversity and depth they were so wonderful at. I love reading back issues from the 80s and earlier (my earliest copies from 1956 are a joy).
Comments
For science-related articles, I'd recommend Science and Nature.
Speaking here as a scientist, I wouldn't. That's for a couple of reasons:
1. They're really, really expensive. 2. They're extremely technical, and you're unlikely to know enough about all the various fields that publish in them to be able to read through them cover to cover. And if you're only reading a single article, why pay that really expensive cost? 3. They have the reputation of publishing what's sexy, not what's necessarily well done. They've published some crappy science over the years just because they'll get a lot of attention for it.
Instead, I'd recommend American Scientist[0], which is today what Scientific American was 30 years ago, while Scientific American has become what Discover was 30 years ago. It's well written for a general audience while still covering a wide range of subjects, and it's reasonably priced.
[0]https://www.americanscientist.org
I agree with #1, although if you're associated with a university, you will most likely have access to it.
I strongly disagree with #2, their news and opinions section is usually top-notch, well written and understandable (e.g. an article about physics is written to be comprehensible for a biologist, who usually has no more knowledge about the matter than any other layman).
#3 might be true, however this even more so for any other, less science-focused, news-outlet, where "sexiness" matters even more to attract a less science minded audience.
American Scientist looks promising, I was so disappointed when Scientific American lowered their standards and simultaneously became obsessed with climate change coverage at the expense of the previous diversity and depth they were so wonderful at. I love reading back issues from the 80s and earlier (my earliest copies from 1956 are a joy).