I'm voting Lancet on this one (and not just to be a pest either). It is clear, conveys a good bit of information, and to an intellecturally mature audience conveys a lot more excitement than the Cell cover does. Why? When I see the cell cover, I think "hype, spin, glossy, and dummed-down for the non-scientist". When I see the Lancet cover, I think "damn, the editors must really think this result is so astounding, so strong, and so important, that just the one crisp sentence is all the advertisement needed".
And the Lancet (and Cell too, to some extent) is not for your casual non-scientist audience -- it is a scientific journal, by and for scientists.
I like the one that is
a) factually correct;
b) does not oversimplify yet is understandable; and
c) very very sexy.
It's a tossup between the two. Plain white on black all neat and square and stuff is kind of sexy.
I like the Lancet cover. It's in humans and not hyped up cell cultures.
I like the first (elements) best because its presentation is clear while the second design seems cluttered.
kinda depends on the goal....i like elegant and succinct (i.e. plain) for the 'real deal'...for technical papers.
But I enjoy a flashier design for review articles or more popular science articles.
I'm voting Lancet on this one (and not just to be a pest either). It is clear, conveys a good bit of information, and to an intellecturally mature audience conveys a lot more excitement than the Cell cover does. Why? When I see the cell cover, I think "hype, spin, glossy, and dummed-down for the non-scientist". When I see the Lancet cover, I think "damn, the editors must really think this result is so astounding, so strong, and so important, that just the one crisp sentence is all the advertisement needed".
And the Lancet (and Cell too, to some extent) is not for your casual non-scientist audience -- it is a scientific journal, by and for scientists.