Something tells me that the 2009 stats will be different.
I suspect the Fantasy Magazine numbers will shift a bit more in the coming year -- I've taken advantage of the rate increase to press some of my favorite "name" writers for stories, and look forward to prodding some of my other favorites at upcoming cons and events.
Some of YOU PEOPLE have promised me stories and then not delivered. I'm looking at you, Paul Park. :p
I outta send Sean somethin'...
I can be very persuasive . . .
Interesting stats -- how did you get them?
Also an interesting choice of "top ten." Myself, I'm not sure I'd've included IGMS (yet), and I probably would have added Subterranean and/or Postscripts.
I included most markets that were generally SFWA-qualified, but open. Neither Subterranean nor Postscripts are open markets. As such they could not be considered.
Here's a chance to educate me, if you have the time. What do you mean by an "open" market? Pretty much anyone can write to Postscripts with a query. (Of course, Postscripts isn't on the SFWA list anymore, so it could be disqualified that way -- but I still want to know what "open" means.)
And Interzone isn't on the SFWA list, is it?
I agree entirely about the quality of Interzone -- a smashing publication. But you stated a precise definition above, and I was testing how robust it was.
So, methodologically, you went to each issue of a given mag for 2008, wrote down the names of the writers, and checked it against the qualifying list on Writertopia? There are a lot of new writers who don't wind up on the Writeropia list because no one adds them. (They qualify for the list technically, but Bill tends to be more passive than active in this regard.)
I did, but if they weren't listed there I also went to their websites, whenever possible. If they had professional sales before the Campbell Award existed, then they weren't new. I did as much background research to confirm that authors were indeed "new."
To me an "open market" is open submissions, without any need for a query, so I saw no reason to include Postscripts. (Ignoring for the fact that most people treat it as an anthology, a fact that they acknowledged recently, by labelling, finally, as an anthology series). I did include Interzone because it is considered a top market, by Locus; and I included Weird Tales for the same reason. If there are markets I missed out, this is the opportunity for other people to indicate, publicly, what their breakdowns are. I'm just one guy, after all :-)
What does "new" author mean in this context? First sale to that market? First pro sale? First paying sale?
I do have a life . . . and a wife . . . and would like to keep both, please :p
You know, I wonder if I like Fantasy Magazine for exactly this reason. New writers. New voices. A totally fresh perspective on SF that gets neglected when other magazines (and they know who they are) just keep pushing the same ten author's trunk stories issue by issue.
If it wasn't for Fantasy Magazine, I might not have ever learned about a number of folks who are now considered to be up and coming writers in the field.
Please, just keep buying the really good stuff, regardless of them being a name or not.
Quality, variety, and openness to new writers all drew me in both as a reader and a writer.
I've discovered some really good writers through them.
Where did the data come from? Just curious, from a research POV.
From table of contents derived from databases, or The Fix Online, and then the authors were quickly compared against the Campbell eligibility years, and then researched, with google.
Neat. Thanks for sharing.
My favourite four of those magazines:
Strange Horizons, Fantasy, Realms of Fantasy, Clarkesworld. I suspect I'd love Weird Tales and Chizine if I could handle the level of dark; as is, I have some trouble with them (though not more trouble than they are worth).
So that's... the top six "new-author" magazines, by your research.
I think that's interesting.