Theodoric writes:
New Scientist is not known to be a stellar research mag...
It's a science news magazine - no research is published in it. When it's reporting the news it's okay, but it has a weakness for touting highly speculative (but fully legitimate) research as if it were something just around the corner, and for occasionally publishing articles so far out on the scientific fringe that they're pseudoscience. If just 10% of the stuff published in NS over the past 20 years had come to fruition we'd be living to 200, traveling in computer guided non-polluting battery-driven cars with a range of 1000 miles, and living on Mars.
As long as one knows enough science to not be seduced by their, uh, enthusiasm it's fine, but that it is so often cited by creationists is an indication of its, uh, weaknesses as a science magazine.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
