When you are finished writing, you must self-critique.
Frederik Pohl: “Does the story tell me something worth knowing, that I had not known before, about the relationship between man and technology? Does it enlighten me on some area of science where I had been in the dark? Does it open a new horizon for my thinking? Does it lead me to think new kinds of thoughts, that I would not otherwise perhaps have thought at all? Does it suggest possibilities about the alternative possible future courses my world can take? Does it illumunate events and trends of today, by showing me where they may lead tomorrow? Does it give me a fresh and objective point of view on my own world and culture, perhaps by letting me see it through the eyes of a different kind of creature entirely, from a planet light-years away?

“These qualities are not only among those which make science fiction good, they are what make it unique. Be it never so beautifully written, a story is not a good science fiction story unless it rates high in these aspects. The content of the story is as valid a criterion as the style.”
Introduction--SF:Contemporary Mythologies (New York, 1978)

·    Astrology

Skeptical Inquirer Magazine

·    Consequences of getting the science wrong.

The Bad Astronomy website got four and a half million hits last year. Do you want to see your book reviewed here?

Alexei Panshin: “Facts and a concern with change are the stuff that science fiction is made of; science fiction that ignores facts and change can be made less frightening and more popular, but inasmuch as it is superficial, stupid, false-to-fact, timid foolish or dull, it is minor in another and more important way, and it is certainly bad as science fiction.”

Analog Discussion Forum and Brass Tacks column (The jaws that bite; The claws that catch).

NASA site describing The Inaccuracies of Space Art.