Having put out a highly misleading cover and story claiming that "Darwin was wrong" when in fact Darwin never discussed the topic, and the tree of life is still very much a solid analogy for metazoan evolution, New Scientist just can't let a bad decision go.
They now have that cover on an adverting poster.
Having antagonised a lot of scientists with their cheap sensationalism to generate sales, re-using the cover is simply giving the finger and saying 'we don't care about accuracy, sales are the thing'.
Jerry Coyne is calling for a boycott, PZ agrees. So do I.
But it should also be a science boycott. High profile scientists who contribute to NS should refuse to continue to do so. Scientists who are approached for stories should refuse to cooperate and make sure the editors know the reason. Tell the reporter why, and ask that the reporter tell the editors the reason why.
But there is another thing scientists can do, and that is assist other science publications such as Discover, and Seed with contributions. If these publications can get a series of high profile stories, the circulation of these publications will rise. That way then the science message can get out, while snubbing NS.
If I were an editor of Discover or Seed, I'd be on the phone to some leading scientists now, to line up some contributions.