« Spine Stories |
Main
| Live from the OLT Conference »
September 20, 2006
Improving the quality of science publications
Prominent Australian Science fiction author and scientist, Greg Egan, is spear-heading a campaign to improve the quality and accuracy of New Scientist, the journal which has the most impact on public awareness of science issues. Unfortunately there is a tendency among researchers across a range of disciplines to disregard the impact of journals such as New Scientist to shape public opinion, but the truth of the matter is that it's mainstream media and public lectures that can massively alter public perception and influence industry funding of research activities. It is therefore paramount that these instruments for dissemination of information about science be subjected to consultation and peer review in order to ensure their integrity as publications.
I strongly recommend that those who are even remotely interested in science and public debate on science issues (as I am through the BrisScience lecture series and the forthcoming Brisbane Science Festival) to support Greg in this campaign.
Posted by jj at September 20, 2006 4:00 PM
Comments. Please PREVIEW your comment before submitting. This helps the server to save your entry.
I've told people for a long time now that "New Scientist" is absolutely not to be trusted in its coverage of physics. It seems to have a new theory of everything on the cover every month. One of the commenters at that blog says the coverage of biology is generally excellent, and I could believe that, as there is less scope for blue-sky theorizing to be taken as gospel in that field. But in fundamental physics, there are at least two sorts of idea which New Scientist is inclined to report with unwarranted enthusiasm. One is radical speculation with a genuinely empirical component, e.g. a theory that the big bang was actually the result of two braneworlds in hyperspace bouncing off each other (this is the "ekpyrosis" idea from string theory). This would indeed appear to be a possibility, but there are very many possibilities in cosmology and fundamental physics. The other sort is metaphysical weirdness, usually brought on by some physicist or mathematician rediscovering idealism or some other philosophical staple. Example: the universe is actually a mathematical structure! And maybe all possible mathematical structures exist, and they're all universes!
To some extent the preponderance of these stories is symptomatic of the state of physics, not just of New Scientist's editorial policies. But it would be interesting to see them do a study on their own reportage. - I should hasten to say that I have not done a quantitative study myself, to back up the claim (e.g.) that there's a new TOE on the cover "every month". Maybe it's only one every three months.
It's also interesting to see Greg Egan, of all people, taking this step.
Posted by: mitchell porter at September 21, 2006 9:59 PM
Post a comment
Please PREVIEW posts before submitting. This helps my host server to save your comments.