So its not quite there yet. Tips?
I'd suggest fixing the shadows first. Seems like you have some general idea where your light is coming from but didn't really go through with it. Also give it more hue variation; dark green->midtone green->light green looks flat. (Maybe move the shadows into blue and the highlights into yellow?)
Also about the figure itself (may just be my own preferences); with that stomach/waist she looks starved and her vagina is in her womb. Also does the upper pair of boobs look like green oranges nailed to the middle her ribcage and the lower pair is pancake-like. Look at photos of real women and breasts and use them as refs.
Listen to what Heyriel and arenhaus said firstly, as that's most important. Here's some additional points though:
The lady is not very attractive. The shape of the jaws and chin, the form of the head, the thick neck, and the hair, which immediately makes me think of eyebrows, makes her look rather masculine. And as I usually like masculine women, I have to say it doesn't really work here, or I might just be expecting some stereotypical blond supermodel since the magazine gives the impression of one of those magazines that usually feature those women. Then again, it might just be my personal preference.
The purple band around her shoulders looks like it belongs to the lower bra, and where on earth do the purple bra's upper part connect?
Fonts with those "hooks" on them (for a lack of better word), like 'Times New Roman', is generally used inside magazines because the "hooks" makes the font easy to read in small size. Titles and captions usually use fonts like 'Arial' without "hooks". Google the fonts, and you'll hopefully see what I mean by "hooks". And don't cut of the letters of the title, it doesn't look professional.
The op - I think that your alien babe is not attractive simply because her form is too close too that of a human, so we start to judge her as an abnormal looking human woman rather than an alien.
Also she has what looks like a vagina on her face.
Although you could work a bit more with the eyes to make them more sexy, give her some long sultry lashes. You would be suprised at how much difference that makes.
Others have already made good comments on the drawing. Here's my 2 cents about the graphic design:
By the way, Arial is a rip-off of Helvetica (a good font) with changes to make it worse. If you use Arial instead of Helvetica, graphic designers everywhere will be rolling around in agony. Probably no one else will notice/care (though there's an argument to be made for the subtle effect of typefaces even to people who aren't geeky about them).
Anyway, the thing that stuck out to me about the design is that the subtitles are an all-caps serif font which is hard to read at that size. Maybe small-caps would work, but I'd suggest switching to either a sans-serif font or not making it all-caps. Also the kerning is awful -- doesn't look designed for all-caps use. It looks like there's a space before some of the exclamation marks, but not all of them. Also that's a lot of exclamation marks -- get rid of as many as you can (especially in titles), otherwise they lose meaning.
Also why are some parts of the 'Orbit' header chopped off, but not all of them/consistently? Why does the image chop off just a tiny bit of the V, and nothing else, instead of the letters overlapping or being made to fit with the image? How come there are like no margins?
Did you use any references for the magazine? Graphic design can be enhanced with refs too.
That test was the most geeky and wonderful thing I've done all day. I'm aware of that it's a rip-off, and I do think Helvetica should always be prefered. I have no idea why I picked Arial as an example instead of Helvetica to be honest, maybe out of old habit of using Windows. I mean, better Arial than Papyrus. *shudders*
Arial's sloping forms makes me sad. Helvetica looks so much more planned and consistent. I'm sure it must gives a different impression on people who aren't geeky about them too, even if they're not aware of it.
Agreed with your other points too. Glad you liked the test -- one of my lesser hobbies is spotting Arial in shop signs.
I changed the font to sans-serif and moved things around, so hopefully its a bit nicer design-wise.
Obviously I'm going to have to start from scratch as far as drawing her again, but take the wip stuff with a grain of salt - I thinned out her neck, widened her eyes and gave her more plausible underwear. I also rounded her chin and lined up her mouth properly.
Better? Worse? Bworster?
Arenhaus already said everything about the figure drawing.
Shoving the lines around from imagination won't improve your this picture and make it better or worse.
Ok, design of the cover:
It's far better now, but you can push this in a more recognizable direction.
Did you do some research and checked how magazine covers look like?
Did you choose in what kind of magazine she's in and how you can get the character of the magazine down?
Is it Playboy or a glossy womens magazine?
See the differences between the two and the difference to your cover?
BTW, another geeky test/game lkinnebrand might like that can help one learn kerning: http://type.method.ac/
Agreed the design is much better now. You might want to track out the smallest words a bit to make them easier to read. I still don't really like the 'slightly covering up bits of the letters' thing -- it's more standard to put text over top of the image instead of the other way around.
Also, '50' pulls a lot of attention away from the title (and everything else). Could either make that thinner/smaller, or the title more blocky, or something. If you search for 'cosmopolitan' in Google Images, you'll see none of the subtitles draw more focus than the main title -- at most it's equal.