The overall rating of a review is different from a simple average of all individual ratings.
Share this review on
I've subscribed to many magazines before, but New Scientist is the only one I've had subscribed to for more than a year. The thought of cancelling the subscription had occurred before, usually if a particular issue didn't contain many articles which were interesting to me, but still somehow, the next issue to land on my door will entice me with some interesting article which will then once again make me change my mind about cancelling! The thing is, this isn't one of the cheapest and most affordable magazines around. At more than £3 a pop for a weekly, its the most expensive weekly apart from The Economist. Granted, if you subscribe to it, you save more, but still, expect to pay around nearly £8 a month on the subscription. If you are a student you can subscribe to it at a slightly cheaper rate. That said, if you love reading this, it is always money well-spent. (I've tried reading The Economist but I just found it so boring... I'm just not that interested in finance/politics so much.)
I am not a scientist, in fact the most science I've ever done was A level Math and AS Physics. When I read the stuff in this, I often can't really say whether I think its a load of BS or not, since I'm not that well-educated in scientific matters to decide! However the New Scientist seems to have a reputation for supplying decent well-researched articles in general so I don't think I'm being brainwashed here. Yes it seems to go on and on about climate change-related issues... but then that is a very important issue for us anyway, and besides, it never recycles articles. Every article related to climate change for instance, will be on something different. A new technology, or idea. Never old news. Never boring. And I love reading it from cover to cover each week because it always surprises me as to how creative and innovative the scientific establishment can be in coming up with novel ways to solve problems. I don't always understand everything - anything related to quantum physics or astronomy for instance, I find exceptionally trying, and I tend to skip those! Apart from that, I love reading anything related to biology, psychology, the climate, geography, and neurology - which makes up a huge percentage of the magazine. The articles are generally written in a way in which a layman can understand what's going on, not too technical but neither simplistic, and never dreary or dry. They fill me with wonder about the things that are even possible in this world. I find it really addictive to read, and because I read from cover to cover and am not an expert in most scientific matters, it takes me a few hours a week to finish the magazine cover to cover, but its worth it.
I also enjoy the letters column and the last column - often quite humourous, but of the dry sort! I also love the question and answer column at the end. Always learn something new.
I suppose if you are inquisitive, curious about the world around us, love to know how things work or what makes things tick, you will love this magazine. It would help too if you are atheist or at least agnostic since religious dogma does not seem to be acceptable in this magazine's ethos - only scientific progress and rationality abound - but there are loads of articles in this magazine regularly about creationism vs darwinism, etc.
This magazine is quality. I don't think I can ever bear to unsubscribe. My brain would turn to mush. I'd miss it too much.
Following the staggering success of "Does Anything Eat Wasps?" and "Why ... more
Don't Penguins' Feet Freeze?", the New Scientist team, led by Mick O'Hare, turn to scientific conundrums that can be answered by simple experiments which can be done at home and enjoyed by the armchair scientist.