New Scientist Opiniões 

I was a long-term subscriber to New Scientist, but I cancelled my subscription last year.
I am not anti-woke, and I am tolerant of political opinions. However, I don't believe they should have any place in a magazine that presents itself as a source of scientific knowledge and communication. It's certainly not why I started reading New Scientist.
I believe New Scientist is not only biased, but has fundamentally violated the responsibility it holds as a science communicator: to present the scientific method in a way that is accessible to people who are uninitiated in the subject.
For a long time, it was clear that many articles were skin-deep in their research, presented opinions instead of facts, and offered political commentary where there should have been rigorous investigation.
Puff pieces galore.
There has been so little substance or expertise in some of the more recent articles that one couldn't tell whether they were reading a researched point of view or simply the opinions of a writer who had skimmed the surface of a topic to whip up an article.
The recent reporting on Bitcoin was what completely severed my trust in the publication.
This was a topic I knew a lot about and followed intently, particularly regarding its massive potential to interface with green technology, fast-track its adoption, and ultimately help unlock solutions to the climate change problem.
The entry-level January 2024 presentation hit every negative Bitcoin talking point from 2014 and even suggested governments should ban it. (Wow. This is a naive take when you understand how distributed, decentralised networks actually work.) It made me realise that the writers had no idea how this technology worked at a mechanistic level. And yet they presented an opinion as though it were informed by a proper understanding of the subject.
This is unforgivable. The conclusion was the antithesis of what Bitcoin could potentially offer.
The article had all the hallmarks of a 1960s anti-marijuana hit piece. Vapid, lacking in substance and, most importantly, wrong.
This is not an "I like Bitcoin, so you should present it favourably" take. The research is out there. The rebuttals to the claims made in the article are out there, and have been for years! It is genuinely incredible that the authors of this nonsense managed to sidestep the positive environmental arguments surrounding Bitcoin, even in 2024.
Science is supposed to be about mechanisms, underlying processes and understanding how things actually work.
If I can identify a publication writing a hit piece based on its preconceived ideas about a topic, where just one layer of deeper investigation would cause its arguments to fall apart, what does that say about all the other shallow articles I'm reading, where I don't have the expertise to identify the same problems?
If I can recognise how misinformed an article is, and how much inherent bias has gone into its presentation, on a topic I understand quite well, while finding most of the other articles I read similarly shallow and biased, how can I trust that I'm getting reliable scientific information from this publication?
The conclusion was simple: I can't.
That is damning for a science magazine.
The scientific method, and the reader's ability to draw their own conclusions, should be paramount.
I understand that, when communicating complex topics to a general audience, a publication might need to draw a few conclusions of its own to get a point across. But at the very least, have the humility to understand what you're talking about before presenting your conclusions as informed scientific commentary.
For me, the faith and trust that this magazine puts research and the scientific method ahead of personal ideologies has been severed.
The most unfortunate thing is that the world desperately needs science communication free from this kind of bias, particularly in an era of widespread disinformation. New Scientist, with a bit of spirit and a genuine commitment to its purpose, could be a beacon of science for the public.
But alas, it refuses to rise to that challenge with any seriousness.
I hope New Scientist can rectify this and return to the magazine it once was, so that we can all benefit from something we desperately need: proper science communication.

I took out a trial of New Scientist but decided it was not worth the subscription cost. When I tried to cancel, I found the process less than straightforward.

If you are considering a trial, I recommend starting the cancellation process at least a week before the automatic subscription begins. Don’t assume you will be able to cancel quickly at the last minute.

See response from New Scientist- beggars belief! I contacted them several times to cancel! Also they say there’s no trace of the transaction at their end! Read the complaint, for goodness sake, NS!!!

Over a month later and they still have money they took from my account despite that they acknowledged cancellation of my subscription. They asked me to send a copy of the ‘welcome email’ along with the other details. I did not get a welcome email as I didn’t re subscribe! I sent a screenshot of the transaction and personal details but still they asked for info I didn’t have. They seemed unable to track my transaction despite having my details. Won’t speak with me on the phone.Whats the difference between this and theft?

I like many of the interesting articles and the mostly reliable weekly delivery - but WARNING. DO NOT believe anything from their articles about how to adapt to increasingly hot summers. Much of their advice about somehow adapting your body is downright dangerous and stupid. I have lived for over 50 years in an area with one to two months of 40 degree Celsius days every summer. Heat kills! You don't adapt. You avoid or you die.

I wanted to read an article behind their paywall and signed up for a discounted trial subscription. After the trial subscription, there is an auto-renewal with no notification and their subscriptions are quite expensive ($55 every three months for me).

I should have kept closer track of when my trial subscription would auto-renew, but when I went to their website I learned there is no option to cancel subscriptions on the “subscription details” page of their main site. Instead, you have to log on to a separate subscription management site with your subscription number and email address.

However, the subscription management site does not recognize the subscription number and email address listed for my account on the “My Account” page of their main site.

Almost a week ago, I completed their “Contact us” form asking for assistance with canceling my subscription and have not received a reply.

The fact that they have a multitude of reviews on this site describing similar problems and have not made their cancellation process any more transparent suggests they are intentionally scamming subscribers.

I wish I read the reviews here before signing up on a promotional offer. It's ridiculously hard to cancel. They could certainly make the cancellation process easier.

They offer you a trial to then take your money and make it really hard for you to cancel. I subscribed to a trial period, they put through the charge without any reminder and then made it impossible to cancel the subscription using your own logged in account. They require you to do a separate second login using your subscription number which is nowhere to be found (after almost one hour looking for it in my email, I found it buried in the bottom of one of the emails in a tiny little font - without saying subscription number so you can't locate it so easily). Then after finding it, I put that in the online login page they require, but it does not work at all. I ended up having to find a number to call their custumer service to cancel. This feels awful and dishonest, so disappointed that I will never consider subscribing to it again.

Sometimes articles are useful, but not very often. It seems to be mostly self-opinionated, would be scientists.
Worst of all the narration online of some of the articles is now being done by people with nauseating American accents. In view of this I have uninstalled the 'app' and will not be renewing my subscription.

A publication that has no moral principles. It practises the dark art of trapping subscribers into involuntary auto renewal. Whole web site has no access to any feature that allows for disabling of auto renewal.

Tricked into signing up for New Scientist. Opted in for a $10 one month subscription, then discovered 2 x $44 debited from my account. I emailed and asked to unsubscribe - no response. So I managed contact via a phone number through my account page. I asked for a refund of $88 & was told no. If I don't get refund, I'll go to the media!!!

Thank goodness I read the reviews. I won’t be subscribing after all seeing how hard it is to stop subscribing

Have raised formal complaint. No acknowledgement. Have requested cancellation of subscription 5 times. No result. A good read but absolutely terrible service. How do I cancel?? How do I raise legitimate complaint??

I ticked the box for the trial offer and paid.They said It couldn’t be found until I showed evidence so had to send copy of bank statement.I have just been billed £45 as it seems I have renewed and I can’t access my account.I have sent an email to cancel.
Totally bad experience and the magazine is so dumbed down now.

Being able to cancel the subscription - website fails, and as it turns out you have to email/phone. The phone lines aren't great.

They don't respond to support emails.

I can't restore my purchases in my iPad App. I emailed them on 16th December and they haven't replied yet.

They're not a serious organisation, and publish and promote ill informed opinions at best, or more likely misinformation for cash.

Their take on Bitcoin, for example, is infantile. It demostrates no research, that they have an agenda, and they have no regard for disemminating science and facts to their readers.

It can, therefore, only be considered a scam.

As others say it is impossible to cancel on the website or app. In their FAQ it tells you to go to a nonexistent tab in your account settings.

Awful scam from such a trusted magazine.

I thought I'd subscribe to New Scientist as I used to read the occasional copy in the early 2000's. I came on here to see if the mag had retained its high-quality and was shocked to find that it's now a subscription racket with poorly advertised prices and an intentionally opaque cancellation process.

What's worse though is all their replies to the reviews are making it clear to everybody that this model of legalised theft is fully intentional and there's obviously no desire whatsoever from them to improve their practices and procedures to help stop people from inadvertently paying for things they didn't really want.

It's scummy behaviour and so I've closed the checkout page and would encourage others to boycott until they begin to show some respect and integrity.

After reading other reviews I chose not to spend money on this periodical. Seems it's seeking to cater to trendy interests and issues rather than critically discerning recent developments and discoveries.

Update: They did say below that they wanted to make this right. But they didn't. 1-year still means 350-days according to NS and they don't want to accept that a year has a very finite definition. Sad.

Original: For such a trusted magazine I'm very disappointed. I bought a subscription as a present in early Dec. Haven't see a copy yet. I went on their website where they very easily allow you to select back copies that have been missed, only to be told that the "annual", "for 1-year" subscription is actually for 50 weeks, and they email they sent me showing the issue from Dec, telling me I was going to get the issue, is a mistake of some sort. I still have an enquiry in with them to confirm this, so I will update.