The fast and slow on submission responses

Last week I mentioned a new site called Duotrope's Digest, which is a free online database of over 1200 current markets for short fiction and poetry. Duotrope allows authors to log in and track their submissions, enabling the site to compile rejection/acceptance rates for the listed magazines and journals. This leads to the most amusing part of Duotrope's Digest, their market response-time statistics.

Now, these response time stats must be taken with a large, clotted-together piece of salt since they are based on self-reporting by writers (with self reporting being a very inaccurate way of collecting statistics). Still, these stats are a decent way of knowing how long your submission might linger at different magazines. Their stats also match up nicely with my personal experience. For example, I have submitted fiction to Another Chicago Magazine and they took almost a year to respond (which corresponds with the reported response time of 357 days, which Duetrope indicates is the worst in their database). Another place I've submitted to, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, is listed as one of the fastest responders, averaging 14.5 days per submission. In my experience the assistant editor of the magazine, John Joseph Adams (aka, Slush God, who maintains a wonderful blog detailing his editorial adventures), does indeed respond within two weeks to most submissions. I can also vouch that a few of the other submission response times listed within these statistics appear to be accurate (for example, Black Warrior Review is indeed rather slow in responding, as are Zoetrope: All-Story and Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine).

As a writer these slow reponse times drive me up the wall. As an editor, I have a lot of sympathy for the circumstances which delay the review of submissions. Many writers flood the markets with their stories, overwhelming editors. This results in editors having less time to spend with any particular submission, which, ironically, causes writers to flood the markets with even more of their stories, creating a never-ending cycle of submission hell.

What's the answer to this? On the submission end, I'm not sure. All editors can do is strive to respond to submissions as quickly as possible. As for writers, we shouldn't overly obsess on response times. Give a magazine three months to respond (unless their guidelines say otherwise). If you haven't heard back by then, submit the story elsewhere. Most importantly, though, keep writing. After all, what matters most are the stories we create, not how long it takes a magazine to respond.


Comments policy: storySouth invites comments from its readers. The comment period for postings in this forum will last for one week. We will publish one comment per reader, with exceptions in special circumstances. The editors will respond to comments, if appropriate, after the comment period is over.

Their stats seem pretty accurate to me. I look there quite often. I try to submit to the longest replying markets last--even though they may be the biggest and best paying.

Those magazines that have online forms and only accept one story at a time from a writer--and/or limit the number of stories per reading period seem to control the flow better. Of course, not all writers will follow the instructions, but the editors generally catch on to schemers (or idiots?)

I don't mind the long responses--so long as the magazine is clear on how long to wait. Unfortunately, most of them are not clear and can take up to a year to respond.

I guess that's just the way it is when you have a supply/demand imbalance.