Recently, I was asked whether my publications fall under the category of popular science literature. This prompted me to reflect on the question. Then I provided both a brief and a more detailed response, which I documented.
My brief answer was: Partially.
The longer response aimed to elaborate on the brief answer. To do this, I first searched online for a description of this term. Based on my search, I identified the following eight points, which I commented on as A(answer):
1. Popular science literature is intended for non-specialists rather than scientists.
A: I partially agree with this. My work is aimed at all interested parties, including both laypeople and related scientists.
2. The structure, format, and style differ from academic publications.
A: I partially agree with this. Often, I do make sich deviations when trying to avoid ‘boredom’ for laypeople, and prioritizing clarity, which is almost always the case.
3. The authors typically consist of texts by scientists or science journalists, based on information from scientific texts aimed at a specialized audience, containing complex content that is often difficult for non-experts to understand.
A: I also partially agree with this. While I certainly use scientific publications, I frequently reference works from antiquity or the Middle Ages, either in their original form or in translations.
4. The methods of scientific work and the use of scientific terminology are largely overlooked.
A: I partially agree with this as well. I try to avoid scientific terms when I believe they are not easily understandable for my target audience. However, in the research that precedes my publications, I do strive to adhere to scientific methods as closely as possible, although these are often not evident in the publications.
5. Typically, information is presented without verification and complete citations.
A: I strive to verify my information using my sources and almost always include a detailed list of the sources I used. However, I tend to avoid referencing specific passages from these sources in the main text, which requires additional effort for those who wish to look them up.
6. Additionally, many publications are written in a journalistic style rather than an academic one. I
A: disagree with this characterization; my writing style is often described in reviews as a blend of scholarly and conversational. When I write, I focus on expressing ideas as I would in a presentation.
7. The authors do not present their own or new findings.
A: I partially agree with this. The perspectives I have developed are indeed my own results, and in some cases, they are even new.
8. There is no unified definition of ‘popular science.’
A: This is also why I sometimes refer to some of my publications as popular science and accept it when others label them as such.
Overall, this response on the put question is not entirely satisfying for me either; there is certainly more to say about it. However, since the topic is not important to me at all, I prefer not to invest further thought into it and hope the questioner is satisfied with the answer. Personally, I seriously doubt whether the level of ‘popular science’ actually is correct for parts of my work, I think it is below that level.
