Reviews For Scientific American Magazine

Classic monthly that I truly enjoy. Articles are not newsbites, but moderate-length texts written mostly by scientists involved in the actual research. It is refreshing to read "My team" or "I" researched this or that subject in the articles - unlike some mass-market science monthlies. The 'new' SA does go further now in explaining the basics behind a subject, with a phrase or word of background interjected here and there. I say, if you want pure science, read Science. This is a magazine for the somewhat better informed individual who wants to keep informed on many facets of science.

Scientific American is a great magazine. The current format is a blend of public-readable writing and real science- and yes there's still plenty of real science in the pages. There's less formulas and math than there used to be- then again, most of the formulas and mathematics are now trademarked properties of megacorporations anyway, so the change isn't only one of style.

In these pages, you'll get lots of information and plenty of world view. From the large hadron collider to conflicts between Newtonian and quantum physics to the recent findings of space probes to the continues exploration of genetics... and yes to "popular" issues like the use of Facebook in the Iranian elections. In a nation that desperately needs more science education, this magazine should be required reading. The magazine does in fact include more populist articles and less true scientific writers than it once did, but the mix is not wholly offensive and you're still certain to find at least some articles that will speak way above your head on some issue or another. Personally, I can't stomach any part of Popular Mechanics or Discover or any of the other "technical" (re: Science by MTV) magazines anymore, but I still find the bulk of Scientific American entirely worthwhile.

Many reviewers say that Scientific American has an editorial bias toward liberal ideals. These comments say more about the current political divide in America than anything about the magazine itself. Like it or not, the current conservative party in America is decidedly anti-science, and if you browse any truly conservative media of the moment you'll likely see the word "scientist" used like a curse word (and usually not far an association to socialist or totalitarian regimes). Until the day when these politics become less extreme, a scientific American probably is a liberal American, and the magazine follows as such.

As a sidenote, anyone who thinks the magazine has never been political needs to puruise the section with snippets from old issues. Writers from bygone eras didn't just inject political beliefs, they often stated them in black-and-white and very plain terms. Maybe there's an argument to be had that the current writers should do the same, but the fact is that the magazine has always included a certain amount of political content between its pages.

This is a classic American publication. It generally lacks peer review and today is aimed at the general population as opposed to the professional audience, but that shouldn't make it any less entertaining for the professional scientist. Thought provoking and insightful from cover to cover.

Scientific American is a monthly magazine written to anyone comfortable with the scientific lingo on any of a wide range of research subjects. It shows what's going on at the forefront of science breakthroughs and what they could mean in the marketplace when completed.It offers a periscope view of these topics written by the people doing the research, in as clear and communicative a way as can be. Every issue boggles the mind, is actually an understatement.

I have been a subscriber for more than twenty years, but for several years now I have seen the magazine moving more and more to the left. Where climate change is concerned the staff of S A appears to consider it settled that human civilization is responsible. I never see any articles that consider evidence such as the earth goes through periodic cooling and warming phases or that the sun is going through a warm phase (as evidenced by the fact that Mars is getting warmer, too).

I would prefer to see objective evidence on both sides rather than articles that presuppose, when there is evidence to the contrary, that one side of the argument is correct.

I will let my subscription expire and find a source of objective, hard, science.

I ordered this as a gift for my husband who is a science enthusiest. He finds it very informative and an enjoyable read.

I am not a professional in the sciences which is exactly why this publication is so important. It provides timely articles, written in more or less layman's language, that are relevant to our world. Refreshingly, the reporting does not include so much of the political noise and nonsense that bombard from so many media these days. In addition, this magazine gives the reader access to the current trends in research, academia, and general tenor of scientific-related work itself. Due to the consistently excellent writing, photography, and accompanying footnotes of explanation, I must recommend this magazine to anyone remotely interested in our sciences but does not have a particularly strong scientific background.

This is one of my favorite magazines. I heard about this magazine from several of my professors, they used articles as examples in their lectures.

I bought this subscription for my husband and pretty much everyone in our family reads it including our 4 year old and my dad who visits us from Hawaii. My dad loves it so much we're getting him a subscription for xmas. They always include intriguing content.

As always, the magazine never disappoints and is an invaluable way of keeping up with the latest scientific discoveries, enigmas and quests for answers.