I think your new cover style is a misfire, unless your goal is to increase news-stand sales (a questionable objective for a magazine such as yours). You de-emphasize image and emphasize text. The result is stuffy and constrained.

Combining nuclear power plants with gorillas or a cheerful Francis Crick with the globe in crisis is just annoying clutter — most subscribers are going to scan the issue anyway. It's a step backwards from the aesthetic appeal of one big, striking image, which was often breathtaking even if you knew nothing about the field that produced it.

As for the journal's content, please do away with intrusive or sensational typographical abuse. For example, the emphasis on “manipulation” and “science” in a World View quote box (Nature 467, 501; 2010) is inane and better suited to a gushy fashion or celebrity magazine. It reminds me of the 1970s, when some Wall Street lawyers tried wearing bell-bottomed trousers and decorating their office walls with orange stripes. Fortunately, they got over it.

Also, the 'SABOTAGE!' trick of turning article titles into huge graphic items (Nature 467, 516; 2010) makes it harder to distinguish editorial content from advertisements. One hopes that this isn't intentional.