Focus for science

A three-hobby continues to introduce its readers to popular science publishers and publications. The editor -in -chief of the magazine “Science in Focus” ( http://vokrugsveta.ru/nauka ) Egor Bykovsky answered questions from the newspaper.

- When was there a decision on the release of the magazine with a nyto ? To whom did the idea of ​​such a magazine come to mind ? Why was the British Focus magazine chose in the partner’s report ?

- This story is quite long and began eight years ago. The publisher and owner of the “Around the World” Sergey Vasiliev wanted to replenish the publishing clip of a popular science magazine. At that moment, I worked as the editor -in -chief of the magazine “What is new in science and technology”, which was published by the Nexion Publishing House under a license of a good American magazine Popular Science . Vasiliev suggested that I go to work in the “around the world”, and the ChN magazine was supposed to be bought some time later, and I would continue to engage in it.

Unfortunately, negotiations on the purchase, although they lasted quite a long time, eventually fell off, and “chn” eventually died quietly in the bowels of the AST publishing house. In the meantime, I worked in the “around the world” by the head of the science and the editor-in-chief of the portal Vokrugsveta.ru , but did not stop dreaming of a separate popular science journal-all the more so that the situation in Russia changed, and it seemed to me that interest in scientific death was gradually waking up after a clinical death, which happened with this interest in the 90s.

In 2009, I decided on behalf of the Sun to start negotiations with the Swedish publishing house of Bonnier, trying to buy a license from them for the same Popular Science . They came to Moscow to talk, but instead of PopSci , they stubbornly offered us the journal Science Illustrated . We did not like him at all, and we did not want to publish him - another Russian publishing house took up his publication in 2011, but Science Illustrated is not suitable for our market, and his Russian edition died without living a year. And we eventually agreed with the British BBC on a license for the journal Science Focus (to date, it was renamed Focus ).

Focus is a great choice for two reasons: firstly, the BBC has traditionally strong scientific programs, and many presenters of such programs are simultaneously authors of the magazine. And secondly, despite the correctness of the content, Focus does not disdain the “pop” submission and won the quite large audience by British standards. It suited us to us. We released the pilot number in May 2011, then took a break, took the run and ran from September 2011.

- How does the “science in focus” differ from the original Focus ? Does the Russian edition intervene in its hundreds ?​​ What is the share of Russian content in the journal ?

- Fundamentally and ideologically does not particularly differ. The magazine has, of course, Russian content, about a quarter of the total volume. But local content is mainly on “small” formats-news, copyright columns, scientific posters, reviews of books in the local market, gadgets, etc. This makes the reader the impression necessary for a successful existence in the market that the magazine “Science in Focus” is our local. Well, this is how it is, in fact, although the overwhelming number of large articles is still British origin (though often with Russian clarifying inserts, comments of our scientists, etc.).

I must say that in general, the Russian edition often interferes with Fokusian articles is much stronger than it is usually accepted in licensing publications (and in some, for example, in the Russian National Geographic , you cannot correct the letters). The problem of Focus ' And the fact that they, hoping that their authors are more likely not journalists, but scientists, almost do not resort to the services of scientific editors. And in vain - from time to time there appears complete nonsense. So our magazine differs from the British, first of all, in the sense of scientific correctness it is much closer to the ideal.

- What are you seeing the differences from others in good publications ( are there any special , specifics , “ chips” )?

- The main feature is that we actually came up with a reader niche for this magazine. And therefore, we are so rapidly growing that it is actually alone in it. On the one hand, serious old popular science publications, with a strict tongue and old-fashioned covers. You can’t give up the correctness of their content, but they are some kind of not very attractive, the modern audience is accustomed to another presentation. And on the other hand, there are magazines or science departments in mass publications such as “MK” or publications for hipsters like Esquire -there is a completely modern feed, both visually and in language. But you will begin to read the text in such a publication, say, “recently invented in NASA , SKOP Hubble managed to photograph the planet - zombies inhabited by my creatures,” and you will grab the head. But the “science in the focus” is exactly in the middle - it successfully combines absolute scientific correctness (multi -layer editorial inspections, scientific editing, sending reviewers, etc.) with very populated, bright filing.

- For whom was the magazine intended , what is the AU DITORITY of your sensations ?

- This is a magazine for people of any age and any gender who are interested in news from scientific fields, but do not want to read special scientific magazines - however, it is important, they do not want to read the nonsense that is often published under the guise of scientific news in public publications. Simply put, they are able to distinguish good scientific journalism from bad. At the same time, even more important, these people are not our colleagues with you, and reading should not be work for them - it should be useful, but still entertainment. Here we are on this face. I would say that this is a potential audience in about a million people (in Russia), a considerable part of which we are already covering.

- How was the magazine created and done , by whose forces ?

- He has a very small edition - the editor -in -chief relevant, two scientific editors, two proofreaders, a photo editor and a layoutor. Of course, there are translators (who are often also scientific editors, but in other editions), there are temporary assistants and sympathetic - who can turn to for help in assessing a particular material.

- How are relations with the old Shim brother - the magazine "Around the World" ?

-We do not really intersect in content both in the audience, and at the “around the world” it is much wider, of course. The relations are good - I still worked for six years in the “Sun” by the editor -in -chief of the editor -in -chief and I love both the magazine and the people working in it. But there is practically no editorial cooperation.

- How successful the magazine is by the brief standards , what are the criteria of success , as in terms of payback , spatial spatial ?

-Here we go into matter, about which I can’t talk very much, is connected by a contract. In addition, there is no generally accepted measurement of success, for everyone it is different. Someone makes a cheap magazine at a loss, but the audience is large and then the advertising is expensive. Someone develops a user model-an expensive magazine, payback at the expense of readers, there is almost no advertising, because there are few readers. We rather belong to the first model. I can only say that our retail circulation (we have made only 14 numbers) grew much, much faster than the plan. The subscription, for example, was ahead of the plan 4 times (although, honestly, I don’t really understand why, under the Russian delivery system, to subscribe). The magazine is close to self -sufficiency, but so far it has not reached it - because it is young and has to spend very large funds on “entering” into distributor networks.

- What are the main problems by the PRO Red by the magazine ?

- Not a single problem is facing us, our path is lined with joys and pleasures ( laughs ). Seriously, the problem is the same as everyone else - the paper gradually goes out of use, you need to switch to electronic distribution, and this is not as simple as it might seem. Although our iPad version went well and she just pays for itself.

Another problem is content. Nevertheless, Focus is a magazine primarily about the chemistry-biology physics. There will be neither history, nor linguistics, nor psychology, nor botany here, but these are all sciences too. BBC also has BBC History and BBC Wildlife- we do not have. It remains only to introduce materials into the fabric in focus, which, as it were, give the reader the impression that we write about all science, and this does not always work cleverly.

- What are the immediate plans and plans for the future ?

-Try to enter the Android application market and look around there properly. You need to understand whether people pay there for something or not. If not, it will be sad - the magazine cannot go out without money, and the paper version that brings them will end sooner or later. I’m not talking about salaries and fees, but also licensed deductions to Focus ' but also, you know, far from three rubles per month.

- What materials do you consider the most successful , and which are the most about the reed ?

- The most failure? Of course, so I told you! All the most successful!

- How do you generally assess the situation with the popularization of science in Russia ? To what extent does "science in focus" help to improve it ?

- In general, the situation is sad compared to the Soviet past, but compared to what was 10 years ago, it is simply brilliant, so the trend is increasing. “Science in Focus” is undoubtedly the locomotive of these improvements. And at the same time he rides along the rails, which have already paved a three-hobby. He said well?

- We know that readers of the magazine when they are raising their issues of the editorial office. Which question seems to you the most interesting and unexpected ?

- I want to say that we are written a lot - I get several hundred reasonable letters per month by e -mail (and only a dozen - by paper, and then mostly from crazy). Good questions - that is, those that make you scratch in the back of the head, think, say to yourself: "But really, how is it?" - And starting to understand the topic is a lot, and this makes my life much more diverse. For example, while we talked, the following question came from the reader: “What makes the gas with gas, and what determines the solid and liquid phases of the substance? Not mathematical equations describing the states of the substance, namely the executive mechanism that determines different aggregate conditions? ” A good answer will have to think. Well, we have such a job.