Editor Interviews

Our selection process is a two-part procedure: the initial readers pass work up to genre editors, who narrow the list down to their favorites. Readers and editors then vote on which pieces get accepted for publication. And we, the Editors-in-Chief, weigh in if and when necessary. Sometimes a piece will be accepted conditionally, depending on whether an author is willing to make the requested changes.

Only that writer is open to editorial intervention. That the process is collaborative.

Just the standard evaluations any publisher has to make: is this book right for our community of readers, etc.

None. That said, we have an internal rule that if we find more than 3 GLARING typos, we have the option to stop reading. We don't want to spend more time with your writing than you did.

We like to have at least 2-3 reader opinions and discussions prior to offering.

None.

We use a labeling system inside Submittable. If a submission has a yes vote from two of the four senior editors, it is labeled for “Senior Editor Review.” Likewise, there is a “Must Have” label that any senior editor can use to advocate for a particular work. Then the discussions, debates, emails, and late-night coffee clatches begin.

Every piece is read at least twice: by a reader and an editor. The stories and poems that make the shortlist are read by the whole team.

Engagement with the contemporary world (direct, indirect, whatever).

We worry a little about length versus heft of the work. A long "light" piece is not likely to get accepted because we'll get tired of the lightness way before the end. A piece that's very grave but 500 words will usually not go because we might feel that the gravity is not fully served by the length. We tend to rule out anything that seems tired, overused, glib, haughty, pretentious, adolescent, etc.

We may do a basic google check to know that the writer/artist is real (we are aware that some real writers prefer to be ghosts on the internet, and we're okay with that), the piece is previously unpublished and not plagiarised, and the writer/artist does not have a history of misconduct. More recently, AI has emerged as a real pain for editors. You can tell a work has AI-generated elements from the looks of it, but looks can be deceptive too.

Just the three reviews. Now we have another problem of running it through AI detectors.

We have a team of readers who upvote and downvote pieces; we narrow it down to our top 50-60 pieces and then we meet to discuss and narrow it down further to ~30-40 pieces.

Our Review Process: Step-by-Step
1. The Initial Screening
All submissions are read blind by our editors to ensure complete fairness. Because we accept submissions on a rolling basis, I, Editor-in-Chief, Elaine, takes a first look as soon as they arrive.
Immediate Rejections: If a submission clearly violates our guidelines, skips formatting rules, or contains excessive grammatical errors, it won't move forward to the editing team.
A Note on AI-Generated Content
Pieces generated by AI are rejected immediately. We do not provide feedback for these submissions because it doesn't help a human creator grow. Trust us, we've read enough AI prose to spot it quickly, but we always double-check using multiple AI detectors before making a final call.
2. Editor Review & Feedback
If a piece looks promising, I pass it along to the appropriate section editor. The editor reviews the piece and provides constructive feedback, which we always share with the submitter, whether the piece is accepted or not.
3. The Tie-Breaker (When We Can't Decide)
If an editor is on the fence, or if we are judging a major competition (like our recent Young Writers' Ekphrastic Contest in collaboration with Phosphorescent Lit), the entire editorial board steps in. We discuss the pieces together, hold a vote, and let the majority rule.

We have had the wonderful opportunity to publish debut novels from a variety of authors, so while having an impressive resume can help, it doesn’t necessarily persuade me. As a team, we want to make sure you will be a good fit for us collaboratively, and we have multiple professionals in editing, marketing, and design weigh in before final acceptance.

For a piece to be accepted for publication, we have a few extra rounds of evaluation. For each submission that remains on our list, at least half of all editors need to read and score them. We then decide whether they will proceed to the next round during our weekly meetings. For our last issue, we had to meet several times to decide on which pieces would be published.

Most of our admin work is put in transferring the piece from its document form to our webhost. It takes time, and also provides the opportunity for line edits. The webpage design is the only other time the piece is evaluated, if you want to call it that.

The GossamerWight Submission Process Overview:
(1) Acknowledgment: we confirm receipt of all submissions received during the open window. Because our editorial team is small, we do not provide feedback for unsuccessful entries beyond notifying the outcome.
(2) Review Stages:
(a) Initial Screening (after the window closes): we reject all submissions that did not meet our guidelines.
(b) Phase Two: the editorial team reads and discusses the remaining submissions; we create a longlist, from which we agree a shortlist.
(c) Phase Three: we make our selections from the shortlist to be included in the quarterly anthology.
(3) Publication Notification: We email all successful submission authors, then those who have been unsuccessful; make the new anthology issue live on our website; email site users who have opted-in to receive marketing updates; announce the anthology publication on our social-media channels.
(We may, at times, expedite our response and selection decisions.)

I read and rank on a scale of 1-10. Usually, all of the 9s and above get through. Great stories get rejected because of the limited space. I don't ask for rewrites and resubs because I usually get enough stories to fill out the slate.

There can be an 'is this helpful' criteria. Helpful to the world, to the writer, to the reader. That's an extremely subjective filter but if I think it's helpful in any of a host of ways (illumination, understanding, solace, empathy, warning and many more), it has a greater chance of being accepted. Human creativity is important for a healthy, just society, I take it stupidly seriously. I should take it less seriously. Anyone know how to do take it less seriously?

We use a multi-step process to decide on story publications and award nominations.

Our team has a spreadsheet with all the submitters and their submissions. Each week we will read a set amount and then log our votes for those works. We discuss every work, whether it was a unanimous yes, or, no, vote. Works that are unanimously approved move on, and split votes get additional discussion. Works that survive round one go to the layout stage where we see if it fits with the work we are looking to take, and we decide further from there. At that point our list is finalized and we notify contributors soon after.

Our pieces are peer reviewed. If it is a piece of scholarship, that is a double blind peer review. Our poetry section is curated and read through by our poetry editor, and we often weigh in as different editors to make calls. For fiction and prose, we have in-house readers we use. So, anywhere from 1-4 readers will look at a piece.

Working relationship with the author - some pieces need more work, but we like their potential. If an author is willing to edit with us, and keeps in touch in a timely fashion, it can be a fun and rewarding experience.

We have 3 poetry editors who will read a piece if it gets a "maybe" or a "yes" from me or whichever editor or intern has seen it first. If it still gets a "maybe," we have to wait until the magazine is almost ready to go before we decide if it is a "yes" or a "no." We have two editors who read fiction and creative non-fiction, and if those two are on the fence, we send it to a third. Part of the final evaluation has to do with whether the piece fits into the issue as we are building it up.

Because we're looking to fill one issue at a time, we think a lot about fit. We want each issue to feel cohesive cover-to-cover, which means that we often have to decline incredible work because it's just not the right fit for a given issue. We also have to do a bit of juggling with word count sometimes: our budget only allows for a set number of words per issue, which leads to some very hard decisions.

Work under consideration is read by both the editor and associate editor. We discuss the piece, consider its fit with the issue, and work toward consensus before making a final decision. When needed, we may bring in an outside reader for additional perspective on language, subject matter, form, cultural context, or visual/interdisciplinary practice. Our goal is to make thoughtful decisions that serve the work, the contributor, and the issue as a whole.

Before acceptance, we make sure to have read the work multiple times on different days (this goes for most of what we reject, too). We make decisions in a timely manner, but we also want to read the work with all the care and attention we can give it.

After passing initial selection, my team and I review the pieces and decide on a general theme. The remaining submissions are reviewed a second time to see if they fit with the general theme and contain strong emotional resonance and/or structure.

Both Editors are Advanced Artists who have spent decades honing their craft. We know what we like when we see it. Our evaluations are humanly intuitive.

Edits for grammar, if applicable, suggestions on general improvement overall or at the sentence level.

Every work is read and rated in the first stage. If the rating is high enough, it will move on to the next stage where it becomes widely read and discussed in that genre. Once a piece has reached this level, each assistant and editor can comment on it, discuss it, and rate it. Usually the work with the highest ratings from this stage is what we publish but our genre editors can make executive decisions, if something doesn't feel right to them. I read all the work in the second round so I can weigh in, if needed. Occasionally, I write personalized letters to writers whose work was not selected but whose writing I would love to see again.

Our first round is simply to determine if the rules were followed - word count, formatting, etc. Second round is a simple yes/no. The shortlist is analyzed and then sorted and then for the final round, real discussions happen.

We always consider whether we think a novel has transmedia potential. We also do internal profitability estimates.

We have teams of editors designated to the genres we publish, and each individual editor on that team will read through their assigned submissions, choosing the best work, before they submit it to a voting process by the whole team. The team will then present each piece to be considered by the entire editing staff of FLARE and voted into the magazine. Each chosen piece is then evaluated for any signs of AI, and any prior publication online, and if they pass, we send out acceptances.

Works are evaluated for quality and fit, with an emphasis on whether it aligns with our themes and values.

The initial submission is the first three chapters. If we like that, we'll request the whole manuscript. If that lives up to its promise, and fits in with the Q&C vibes, we'll offer a contract.

None! It's just the two of us reviewing submissions—we read and evaluate everything ourselves.

If a piece was initially rejected, it can still be brought back up and argued for throughout the publication process. Since lots of debate happens during voting stages and re-votes will occur, we don't know the final results of who's pieces are accepted until March when we send out the announcement emails.

At the final table read, our top tier stories/poems compete against each other for space in the issue. We consider which pieces stand out the most, and which have the fewest "flaws" as we see it. It is rare that we find a piece that is perfect all the way through, but if we love 90% of something, it is often worth giving grace to that remaining 10% that bothers us. If there are pieces dealing in similar themes or styles, we often consider which we like better. Or, if a piece feels too similar to one we published in the most recent issue, we may let it go in favor of something more fresh.

If our submissions editors decide the story should be read by the senior editors, we begin a discussion, which often still results in a rejection. Even if we decide to accept, we sometimes contact the writer about edits beforehand. We also research the writer before acceptance.

Both editors must choose to accept each piece before it’s published.

Shortlisted work is usually read across the editorial team to see whether it holds up beyond a first response. We consider the strength of the writing, the piece’s originality, and how it sits within the wider shape of the magazine. Final decisions come through editorial discussion, and occasionally through a short exchange with the writer before publication is confirmed.

A story needs to earn a place on the Not Quite Write Prize for Flash Fiction shortlist to feature in our anthology. That means it needs to be one of the Top 6 stories as determined by our judges.

We check spelling, grammar, and may fact check details in a story or essay.

We are very straightforward. We read. We vote. However, If I like a piece, and the other editors are iffy, I will (and have) make an executive decision and opt to publish. My ball, my rules.

All staff members must agree before we accept a manuscript.

Generally speaking, I don't like to accept too many similar pieces in a short time frame. Even if a story is wonderful and we love it otherwise, if we just accepted or published one recently that's too similar in an overt way, I will usually reject it. For our flash fiction call, this is as simple as recency. During our longer story calls for our print anthologies, this means choosing the best fit out of the small pool of similar pieces.
It's really hard to reject some stories, but for our print publications, I have to consider the overarching immersive component of the anthology, and then practical things like physical space in the pages and how the stories fit and flow together.

A piece will typically be read by a least one reader and one editor, who makes the final decision, but some departments (such as Poetry) have much more extensive processes, with multiple rounds of readers' votes before the editors make the final choice.

We have a limited number of publication slots, so when work advances to the final rounds we have to evaluate it against the full editorial schedule. We try to vary the types of stories we publish, so if we have half-a-dozen hard-boiled private eye pieces, we'll have to pick and choose which makes it to publication. That doesn't mean the story was bad, it just means we have too much of that particular subgenre.

For pieces on the fence, we'll evaluate it again to decide if we should reject it, accept it, or allow the author to revise it.

An editorial consensus is required for publication.

We publish as a cohort model, and there isn't a limit on how many stories we accept. So, we might accept 5 stories in the spring, and 8 in the winter. It all depends on what we get. I also like to get a sense of how many Canadian and Indigenous authors we are publishing. Sometimes, I will email authors personally and ask them to re-submit, and other times, writers might approach me at an event and I'll ask them to submit. Part of my goal within the Canadian literary universe is to eliminate barriers and to encourage writers to put themselves out there.

Many times, the work needs editing. If the author and I can agree on the final draft, it is published. I will not offer to edit a piece if I am not interested in publishing it, and will not waste a writer's time by offering it. As a published author, myself, I can think of two journals that went back and forth with me more than four or five times, as I reworked my submission by their request, and they never accepted it. I try never to do that.

We like to make sure nothing is published that's outright NSFW, since that isn't the focus of this magazine, though we definitely don't focus on catering to young adult audiences. Our goal is to be a platform accessible to as many queer creators as possible.

I like to read through the piece a few times, as do other editors we have on. I take time and sit with pieces for a while. If it speaks to me, it speaks to me, ya know?

Every submitted poem, story, or essay is read by a minimum of two readers. If readers and genre editors rate a piece highly, it is discussed at a table read, and if the piece is still outstanding then it will be submitted for further evaluation by the managing editor and editor in chief.

None. If a piece captures my imagination, it captures my imagination. End of.

I read through the entire piece and then grade it based on a few factors: how well it fits Tigerpetal Press's identity, overall quality of the work, preparedness, cohesiveness, and whether I have a vision for where the piece can go. The best match is accepted.

Occasionally, we will contact the author of a well-written piece to make suggestions that are designed to make the submission even stronger.

First, we have to LOVE it. Then we have to see if it fits in with our list. For instance, have we published too many books with similar themes, story or voice? We don't want one private eye novel or police procedural after another. Or to publish two dark comic thrillers in a row. Is it commercial? Is it promotable? Is the author someone we can work with...not only editorially but in promoting the book? If the author has a backlist, is it still in print or out-of-print? If its out-of-print, can we acquire those titles before publishing her new book?

We have multiple editors reading in each genre and asking each other to re-read things. We agonize through a process of trimming our top picks down to the number we can manage to publish in our one annual issue. We usually offer line edit suggestions to accepted authors, particularly in prose--though once a piece is accepted, those suggestions are up to the author to take or not.

Without revealing too much, several people read the piece before we accept it. We actually start to lay it out and see how it all goes together. It takes a while, and we've lost pieces that are accepted by other pubs while doing it, but we want all the pieces to go together. At that point, several people read the whole thing to see if it works as a whole. The only exception is if we have a guest poetry editor, which we have. I let them have control over that section without any input from the editorial readers.

Just me.

My lone staff person, MJ, is a tiebreaker when I’m on the fence about a piece. Before I send a story to her, I’ll check that it isn’t online elsewhere. I’ll usually do a second read-through as well, to be sure it is a work I really want to start editing.

After a piece makes it through initial screening, it’s reread and discussed by the editorial team. We consider its craft, any editorial needs, and whether it fits the issue’s overall balance. A strong piece may still be declined if we already have similar work or if it doesn’t help shape the issue as a whole.

Initially we weed out stories that are either poorly written or don't fit our theme and style. Next, stories are rated individually by our editors. We then compare ratings and choose the highest rated tales.

Both of us have to agree to accept a piece. It's not enough for one of us to love it if the other isn't keen. We've both had to let go of pieces we've greatly enjoyed because of this!

If I see "potential" in a piece, and I know there are just a few minor changes needed, I will often contact the author and suggest edits. If he/she accepts, we proceed with the piece. I might suggest things like a different way to break the lines, the deletion or addition of a line, or swapping out a weak word for a stronger word.

If I really can't decide I have a few trusted second readers I ask for another opinion although they are normally asked about the 'should I decline this?' stories. I can normally tell very quickly if I want to accept a piece because it gives me goosebumps.

I usually mark a piece as a maybe for two days before acceptance and come back to read it two or three more times. I also consider, if I want to do edits, how drastic they are. If it's dependent on a few more major changes I'll make it conditional and lay out the changes I want to make in the acceptance email to kind of give that ability to withdraw and clarity, but I've also just been finding more and more that writers are very happy to edit even post-normal-acceptance which has made me feel more comfortable accepting pieces I have small issues with but overall adore.

It is usually read by one or more persons.

For fiction, we usually narrow the field to 5-10 top manuscripts and evaluate those select choices closely —reading through to the end, discussing and evaluating.
Then, we review cover letters for interest in the author on joining and being actively involved in the press for a minimum of two years. We ask all our authors to commit to at least two years of service to the press--this primarily means judging two years of contests.
Please note: we keep this a blind process throughout, with the exception of a senior editor knowing the author's identity.

Extensive discussion between myself and my co-host Martin Nathan. We often have different opinions.

I'll often run it by one or two other readers for additional opinions and insight, especially if I really love a piece or if I'm on the fence about one.

If we are struggling to narrow our acceptances, we ask each other for help. I know we've all completely changed our opinion based on a new perspective from the other.

Each piece is different and is treated as such.

We're reading anonymously, but pieces will be tagged as reprints or own-voices, if the submitter indicates either. There are limited reprint slots, so in a way these pieces are a separate queue. Being identified as own-voices helps me understand my own limits in understanding a piece.

We will always have a phone conversation with a promising author to make sure they understand our ethos and that we are a proper fit holistically for their work and life situation.

We don’t tolerate any form of discrimination or hate in submitted work. If a piece contains even a hint of something that feels harmful or exclusionary, it’s flagged and brought to the full editorial team for discussion. That extra step ensures we’re aligned on our values and that everything we publish reflects the kind of inclusive, welcoming humor we stand for.

As EIC, I have final say on every manuscript. Did a reader have an opinion which differed from mine? That's okay. Maybe I'm struggling between a couple of pieces, so I go to a reader and get their feedback. If it's a quick and solid yes, though, I learned my lesson early about letting a piece slip through my hands. I will immediately accept a quick yes.
We also do a quick social media search. We want to ensure once we love a manuscript that the author doesn't have any problematic views which might not align with our press. We are unrepentant feminists and very politcal, and we believe that values matter.

Every piece I accept has been read at least three times.

We go through several rounds of evaluation, and the books we end up choosing are read and agreed upon by the entire team. We only publish a couple of times a year and we're a small team, so we want to choose books that everyone is excited about.

After submission, editors organize and assign pieces to our reader panels. Every submission is read with care and discussed among readers. Pieces that resonate with the panel move forward for consideration. The final decision is based on both the strength of the piece and whether we can honor it within the context of the issue. We want each piece to have space to breathe and to be in conversation with the work around it.

We have a team of readers that reads the submissions, then the short list gets reviewed by our senior editorial staff.

Once we have our holds, we evaluate each piece fully with a second read through (both of us read the whole piece this time). We may take into account additional factors like length, need for editing, or formatting (especially for poetry) that will make the piece more difficult for us to manage and impact the time we have to put together the issue.

If a piece makes it to the second round, I read it through in its entirety exactly once and accept or reject based on that. When we publish something, our readers are encountering it for the first time—so it's important to me to make editorial decisions with fresh eyes, not based on what the story looks like after multiple readings.

Can we format this thing into a small strange book and do we have cash on hand.

Our editorial approach is very straightforward. We have eight editors and we all read everything. We meet every week, and editors bring forward pieces they want to champion. We have wonderful discussions. We laugh, cry, and sometimes get angry. And we reach consensus.

There is a conversation, if needed, between the genre editor and the Editor-in-Chief.

It doesn't go through any.

Multiple members of our team read each submission, and I use their assessments (alongside my own) to decide which pieces to accept. I read every piece!

Our submissions are read, commented on, and voted on by a genre-specific team; submissions and comments are then read by the genre editor, who will have the team rank their top five manuscripts. The genre editor narrows the field down to 5 final manuscripts, which are read by the director, managing director, and marketing director, who meet with the genre editor to discuss and make a final decision.

It is read by three readers, and pieces are only accepted or rejected by editors.

We have three rounds of reading. The published pieces have had the support of several readers at that point.

We usually do a second reading of pieces we are unsure about, and support other team members in the reading process.

The section editors decide, sometimes in consultation with me or the entire editorial team. These different levels ensure that we don’t have just one style represented among the accepted pieces. In any case, each piece is usually edited developmentally before copy editing.

The editor of each genre (poetry, prose, comics) makes their initial recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief. If the work in question is a translation, the translation editor consults with the genre editor before making their recommendations. Initial recommendations are then discussed and sometimes revised after conversations among the genre editors, the translation editor, the managing editor, and the Editor-in-Chief. Our primary consideration is literary excellence as we perceive it, but beyond that we consider other factors in order to produce issues that present a diverse range of voices, themes, styles, geographies, and cultures.

All pieces are read by three readers who vote separately without knowing other readers’ assessments. They can leave comments for other readers, though.
After this initial stage, genre leads will talk with readers to collect their favorites. Among the genre readers, they will come to a consensus on the work they’d like to see included and make recommendations to the Editorial Director and Publisher, who trust in their genre lead readers.

Rereads. Either from me or my cohorts. Maybe I like a piece and my second-banana doesn't. Maybe we disagree on a part. Maybe he reads it before I do. Just all about rereads to really get the flavor of it.

With every piece, we ask ourselves: will this resonate with a child/teen? My daughter, who is the co-creator, is crucial in this process, since she is still a kid and can give that perspective. She (sometimes along with my other two children) is the final test for a piece before acceptance.

Occasionally a piece is accepted pending that certain agreed upon changes or suggestions will need to be made/considered.

Our journal is centred around our main publication themes of mental health, self-care, gender and sexuality, which is the first criterion we seek to be accepted. We also look for pieces that provide more complex insight into these subjects. The themes are incredibly broad and nuanced, and we want our overall publication to reflect the diversity found within society, which includes the messy parts that sit on the edges of these subjects.

For the print publications, we look at how diverse all the pieces are that we want to publish, so we may reject a piece if we have too many of one style already. And, if we have two pieces that are about the same subject, or are too similar, we will select one of them, even though we like both.

We tend to think about whether we can serve the book best. We've passed on work we loved because we thought they could go with someone who could better serve the work.

Each piece is evaluated for content. We prefer not to publish material that is overly sexually explicit. We do not publish work that is discriminatory or hateful. Work is evaluated for errors, if there is a significant amount of editing required, a piece will likely be sent back for revision or rejected.

Joyce, the managing editor, also reads all of the pieces and provides feedback. I read everything at least three times before responding.

We may save pieces for a later issue if there is too much similarity in subject or form. We're also tightly constrained by the small size of our magazine.

All our published stories are read by at least two of our editors. Sometimes one editor really enjoys a story, but it isn't right for the other.

We look for stories with universal appeal, and for work that speaks to our common humanity.

Every piece is read by at least one senior editor. Sometimes up to seven editors will caucus about a piece. The final decision is made by the most senior editor for that genre. To be specific, I make the final decisions for fiction, Claire Oleson makes the final decisions for poetry, Kathryn Kulpa makes the final decisions for flash, and Sydney Tammarine makes the final decisions for CNF. I often read prose submissions outside of my genre, but always defer to the senior editor.

We make sure the author will be okay with us making some light revision suggestions, and then we start the process.

We do have to consider whether we think a potential publication is commercially viable or not. We did once have a submission of a brilliant book set during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. I loved the book, it was so well written with beautiful prose, but I had to be honest with the writer and tell her that I didn't think we could do the book justice in terms of marketing and reach. So that wasn't a rejection of the quality of the work, it was almost a case of us telling the writer that she should reject us, not the other way around.

Our submission system involves a few steps:
1) The editorial team will do a first scrub of stories for guidelines.
2) A small group of our First Readers read, vote, and comment on each story.
3) Our Senior Editors pull stories from those the First Readers championed to be included in a winnowing round.
4) In winnowing, the entire staff reads and discusses these "top-tier" stories.
5) The Editor-in-Chief makes the final selections.
We try to be as thorough as possible. The whole process can take up to three months for the best stories, especially if there are revisions or editing requested.

The quality of writing is important. How skilled is the writer? Is the work refined, complete, and engaging? How will the readers react? Will this submission appeal to our audience?

There are three parts to this process:
I read everything, sometimes as it arrives. I flag it and leave comments for the first readers.
Then, there are two rounds of reading. The ones rejected in the first round are held in a file, I take another peek to make sure we didn't miss anything, and then send out the notifications to the writers.
Of those that we hold for the second round, if they need to be reviewed for sensitivity, we send them to one of two specialized sensitivity readers for comment.
We are still open for submissions at this point, so the second round consists of new submissions that I have reviewed and the ones held for consideration. We may do a second round of sensitivity reading as well.
Out of this process we select 4-6 stories and look at what we will take as the "featured story" for that issue. (This story is solicited.) We also look over audio submissions during this round.
Poetry is handled by our poetry editor, Peggy Wheeler, who selects up to 8 poems that we discuss and make our final selections from her list during the second round.

There’s no other special evaluation.

I always schedule a phone call with a prospective author after reading their manuscript. We must work together and be aligned on the vision for the book; otherwise, I can't proceed. I have learned that many authors are baffled by the idea of having a conversation with a real human being. They are used to receiving edits from a faceless automaton, maybe? But it's important to me that this process is collaborative; editing is creative, just like writing. So if I talk to a writer on the phone and we're a match, I move forward with offering a contract.

Other than quality of writing, we ask as editors this test question when evaluating a piece: Does the work fit the mission and scope of the 'zine?

We do take notice of presentation and whether the author has followed the guidelines. This is an indication of how professional they are and how they might work with us in the future.

Two judges score each script out of ten for appropriateness to the theme, story structure and for quality of the writing, A further five points is given for professionalism: formatting, lack of typos, punctuation, grammar and spelling errors. We accept then all of the scripts where the two judges have both put them in the top twenty-four and thereafter the next best ranks from each judge until we have twenty-four. For example last year we agreed on eighteen so then took the next best three from each judge.

We do take notice of presentation and whether the author has followed the guidelines. This is an indication of how professional they are and how they might work with us in the future.
We have three editors. Only one can reject but all of us can accept. If we accept we are also saying we have the time to see this book through the editorial process. Even if we don't have time, we can indicate that we think this submission is acceptable. We won't keep a submission more than three months and if we eventually have to decline an acceptable submission we invite the author to try again in six months time.

We may suggest a sensitivity read in some cases. For shorter pieces, we tend to produce anthology episodes/issues and acceptance of these pieces requires appropriate matching with other flash stories.

I read them first and determine if the piece will be sent to the other staff members for their opinions.

Not much, if its good: its good. Me and my designer Priya like to look over the accepted submissions, or nearly accepted, together.

All Apex submissions are read by a minimum of two first readers. If both first readers say no, the piece is returned. If one says no and the other says yes, a third reader breaks the tie. If both say yes, the piece is passed up to an editor (either Lesley Conner or myself, Rebecca Treasure) for final review.

We consider the length, but also if the piece will pair well with any other pieces we are considering for the publication.

Is it weird enough?
Will the author remain an author or is this a whimsical vain shot in the dark? We want equal investment in regard to passion in every publication
Line edit evaluation

The piece is given an initial reading. If we feel that it might fit the site we place it into a 'close read' queue.
Then the store comes to the top of the 'close read' queue it is read once more. 95% of the time the piece is accepted on the second read.

We have peer reviews for non-fiction.

We trust our contributors and if they say that something is finished, we treat is as such. Of course, we do have a team of readers that go through the piece before publication to make sure that no minor, unintended errors of grammar or formatting exist. If there is a more substantive comment, we always discuss it with the contributor himself/herself and always expect his/her consent before changing anything.

We check for originality to avoid any potential issues of plagiarism.

If we really love a piece, we might have an idea for how to represent it on our site in a way that lets it shine or engages even more with the concepts of the poem. We have the luxury of turning a piece, for example, that's contrapuntal, by animating that process on our website, or letting the user interact with the contrapuntal nature of the piece somehow. If we're uncertain about the thrust/aim of a piece, we might query the author and say "tell us a little more about this piece," or invite a longer process note. We also galley every piece with our authors after subs close, before the issue goes up.

This is the first year we have had to additionally evaluate whether a piece was written with AI or not.

Once we’ve reviewed each submission, we move immediately with the author if we’re sure about the work. We then look at the shape of the issue overall which then informs which other submissions we will accept.

It may be useful to see this within the wider context of the general steps associated with producing each section of the journal each issue. Editors will typically:

1. Help define the call for submissions for the section
2. Promote the call once live
3. Encourage/work with authors they would like to see published in the section (some editors mentor/coach potential future contributors or have emerging authors from their writing programmes they are helping to improve their craft)
4. Answer questions from submitters re specific submissions or the process more broadly
5. Read essays and write up notes/thoughts on the submissions
6. Score essays against criteria in the Submittable one-page review form
7. Discuss the essays [with each other] to see what the feeling is on a particular essay — the goal is not always consensus on each piece (as that can dilute the range of work published) but to have work that someone in the group would like to champion and the work provides something additional to the journal
8. Choose the essays once they have all been reviewed (or earlier if there are particularly strong submissions that they would like to secure so they don't place elsewhere)
9. Communicate with authors that they would like to progress and under what terms (i.e. edits they would need to be able to accept the piece, checking the work hasn't been published before, etc), letting them know also the date of publication and the process they should expect
10. Send the contract as well as the link to the form to provide all supporting author information (bio, social media handles, etc)
11. Reopen the submission for editing on Submittable to allow the author to replace the initial submission with updated, final copy
12. Once the contract is in place, accept the work in Submittable and ask for any remaining edits including those to align with the style guide (if not requested earlier in the process)
13. At this stage, they may want to ask the authors for a summary of the piece, logline, tagline, supporting imagery, etc that can be used on the website and for social media posts
14. Copy work to pre-press folders, check over again, and ask any remaining clarifying questions/edits with the author
15. Upload work to the CMS and have authors make a final check before the issue goes live
16. If a reading can be provided, this can be added now
17. Thank all non-selected authors for submitting their work — let them know that we will not be placing their work this issue but wish them well in all future endeavours and give encouragement to keep writing
18. Let all authors and submitters know that the issue is now live
19. Share the publication more widely

Each accepted piece gets four passes: first round slush, second round careful read with the genre editor, third round ranking, and then, finally, me reading everything once more to make sure it meets my standards. (Generally, I'm just vetting my editors' decisions, though; I tend to trust their judgement even if the finalists are not entirely to my taste. I haven't defied them yet!) Then there will be a detailed line edit to any accepted prose, and occasional notes for poets as well.

Our reading team votes on the submissions, which then go to the genre editor. Each genre editor selects a list of a dozen or so to pass along to the editor who makes the final decision, using input from the group.

No decisions are made by one person. We make selections by consensus.

Some pieces are such incredible stories that even if they aren't quite what I'm looking for, I'll consider them. I hate the idea of losing a great story, yet I have to make certain the romantic vibe of Micromance is maintained. This consideration takes a bit longer, sometimes longer than I'd like, as I read the piece, set it aside and come back to it another day, in another mood, from another perspective.

We have several readers and editors who assist in the selection process.

We consider how it fits into our theme and how it converses with other stories, poems, essays, or photographs that have already been accepted.

Once a piece has been accepted by volunteer readers, and then by myself, there is waiting period for the writer to receive a formal acceptance. During this period, we are laying out future themed issues and finding the perfect group for it. So besides the writing itself, we are also evaluating whether or not it fits in with other pieces and artwork. The more unique and niche, the longer the waiting period may be for the writer.

All pieces go through two readers, who subjectively apply the same rubric mentioned in a prior question.

Before a piece is accepted, we first evaluate whether it aligns with the current theme of our issue. Our theme plays a big role in shaping the kind of content we feature, so we want to ensure that the work fits within that framework. After that, we focus on the quality of the writing or art itself its originality, emotional resonance, and overall impact. If it passes these evaluations, it’s ready for acceptance

The usual evaluations for writing clarity, engaging characters, and satisfying plot also apply.

First it’s read for story / plot quality and whether it makes me laugh. Then it’s read again for typos / spelling mistakes / punctuation and grammar errors.

Both our poetry editor and fiction editor usually read pieces that are under serious consideration multiple times and there are internal conversations about the piece before it is accepted.

Although we wholeheartedly believe that art, literature, music and comedy should be above or exempt from current mores of political or cultural correctness, we cannot ignore real political/cultural sensitivities. Some pieces are borderline or may go over the line; we give them a second and third look, sometimes we contact the submitter to discuss their intentions or vision before making a determination.

Each piece goes through at least 5 readers that follow their process. To keep things fair, we have a decline list every week where everyone rereads pieces and can convince us why we should take a piece out of the list.

If an editor has questions, we take it to the group.

After the editor reads a submission and finds it interesting s/he might ask for a few rounds of revisions. If the revisions are satisfying the editor brings the story to the acquisition meeting. More editors and the Marble Press Team reads it too. We discuss the MS at the meeting and make a decision.
The decision can be, 1) more revisions are requested, 2) we offer a contract 3) we reject it.

After the editor reads a submission and finds it interesting s/he might ask for a few rounds of revisions. If the revisions are satisfying the editor brings the story to the acquisition meeting. More editors and the Marble Press Team reads it too. We discuss the MS at the meeting and make a decision.
The decision can be, 1) more revisions are requested, 2) we offer a contract 3) we reject it.

If we're reading for our curated lineup, we ask these questions of a piece:
1. Does it fucking slap?
2. Does it feel finished?
3. Is it different from what we've published before?

Depending on the piece we may have an extensive revisions process. Sometimes it's a matter of a few notes and line edits. Other times it's a back-and-forth process that involves close collaboration with the author. Importantly, our editorial process is in the name of making a piece as polished as possible. We never aim to undermine the author or usurp their work.

Some questions we consider: Have we read work like this before? Does it evoke a strong reaction? Does it stick with us?

If a book reaches our editorial board for review, the manuscript is carefully reviewed, along with the auithor bio and marketing plans for the book.

None.

Our selector teams read through every submission, discuss and debate each work's merit. The editor-in-chief is another level of evaluation, often when there isn't consensus. We try to balance quality and variety for our readers in our allotted space. We look for the best, the avantgarde, the multiplicity, the innovative from each edition's submissions.

Our readers will vote and then our editors read through and decide what pieces should be shortlisted on the recommendation of the readers. Then during our shortlist reading period, our editors will read through alongside myself and then we decide on the 6-7 pieces we accept per quarter.

We have two "editors". I read all of the first round and get a short list together. My co-editor Elevens then reads them all and we argue back and forth to come to final decisions. Other than the two reading rounds we do not have anything standing in the way of acceptance. We do an edit round after acceptance, but by the time we get there the piece is good enough that we would take it as is and all changes are up to the author to accept or reject.

We have a peer review team. Pieces are read by a minimum of 2 reviewers, and we read for 2 issues at a time. We always see more great work than we could possibly publish!

Each and every piece received is read by at least 4 of our 5 staff members, whence feedback and notes are collected. We then discuss each piece together in person before a final decision is made. If constructive feedback is available, it is passed on to the writer in the spirit of clarifying our decision process.

A submissions committee.

If I'm seriously considering publishing an author I will run down their social media feeds for the last couple of years to see how they behave in public and to see what the author's core audience is like.

I always check if it is the author's own work - a few years ago, in the French small-press, we had a case of plagiarism. I make sure the author retains their rights if the piece has already been published.
We are now challenged by AI work. It is quite possible to spot the AI "art", but AI "fiction" or "poetry"...

I give preference to pieces that are previously unpublished, accepting only the rare reprint. I consider if we've recently accepted or published something very similar. I often ask for minor edits. I've also asked if a writer would consider offering us a personal essay rather than a poem, with wonderful results.

Sometimes we will request additional edits! We love the editing process and want to work with you.

We are a group of editors. We share our thoughts, and discuss what is wonderful or questionable about each book we publish. We invite some authors to work with us in editing their mss. Sometimes we accept a book on the condition that the author expresses interest in working with us editorially. Some books we accept as they are.

We don't like to impose our own will on submissions. If we love it, we want it, but if it’s a work in progress, it’s a pass. Easy peasy.

Suggested edits, if any are needed.
We, likewise, check with the submitters if our issue's release date aligns with their publishing time goals.

We judge work entirely on its quality.

Generally, our editors collaborate with one another after reading through submissions. We discuss pieces and they might go to another staff editor if we have further concerns or questions about a piece.

There's only one editor here. If I fall in love with a book, it might get published (sadly, we can only take a fraction even of the books I love!). If I don't, it won't. That's pretty much it. We do share our choices with the folks at Titan Books, with whom we've worked for more than a decade now to publish our books and get them into stores around the world, and they might sometimes have opinions about how a given book is likely to do or how it might best be presented. But it's not really "additional evaluations." It's counsel from some very smart people whose judgment is really excellent.

I adore my volunteer readers, but to be totally honest, I usually make all the decisions myself.

This publication has two editors. That is all.

Multiple editors review the pieces and must agree on their inclusion or rejection before decisions are made. Any potentially helpful feedback is passed on to the submitter, if the submitter noted they are open to feedback.

None. I'm only interested in the story.

careful reading both by myself and my assistant editors

There are some stories that are on the bubble, and I put them aside. Sometimes I might ask a beta reader to look at them. Other times I might reread them and then decide whether or not to accept. If the story clicks straight away, I immediately email the author and let them know.

If a piece either participates in or considers a subject matter or style that I know is more the expertise of one of our Contributing Editors, I'll send it over to them for their take on it. That happens with probably around ten or so pieces a year, though, so it's not often. I will mull over work for sometimes longer than I should: sometimes I feel strongly about it, but not certain, like I've just had a very bitter cocktail that I don't at first love, but then its complexities or flavor grow on me. These often become pieces I am so, so happy that Annulet has published.

We have extensive discussions based on our individual evaluations and then try to arrive at consensus to either accept or reject each piece. Sometimes we resort to a vote, but usually we reach agreement.

Pieces are evaluated solely on their merit. We don't even care about a couple grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors so long as the piece is really, truly good.

Form and the little details such as punctuation consistency is important. The piece doesn't need to be perfect, but it should show that some care has been taken to edit it before submitting it to us.

After initial evaluations, we double-check for: typos, sensitive content, formatting questions, plot holes, and consistency.

Every batch of poems, every story, every essay, and every piece of art gets read by three to four readers at SWING, which includes one of the two main editors of the magazine. Occasionally, if we are having trouble deciding about a piece we will get an "outside" opinion from one of our advisory editors.

Not sure what to say here, but I will mention we use the Submittable tool, which allows us to have multiple readers, discuss, vote, etc. It charges a nominal fee, the proceeds from which allow us to pay for the tool itself and provide cash awards to each issue's Spotlight author and two runners-up.

We put all works through a word counter and plagiarism checker.

Not all work is publishable as is. I give each accepted piece a thorough reading and will make suggestions for revision to many of the pieces before they are ready for print.

Once we have a certain connection with the piece of writing we are examining, and it doesn't have any significant grammatical or stylistic errors, we can start to look at it more closely. In particular, we look for the elements that make it stand out from the rest - whether it's particularly evocative imagery, beautiful language, or an intriguing structure.

The process most often is this: a volunteer reader gives the piece an evaluation and forwards it to our assistant/associate editors. Those editors do additional screening, and if they like something, it gets forwarded to the genre editor, who consults with a genre "team" that includes at least one of the student editors to make acquisitions. Often when a piece is accepted, at least four people have read it.

The majority of submissions are handled in-house. If we're really not sure about a story then we'll send it to a reader for an opinion.

After my screening process, I read all the shortlisted entries again, which usually results in me changing my mind about one or two. Then I send them over to Michelle Barker for the final round of judging. The winning entries get published on the Chopping Blog. Before that happens, we sometimes go over a couple suggested edits with the winners.

We're an editorial team of one, but consult our slush-readers (usually a team of two) for handling the first round of reads, and then ask them for advice/insight when needed.

A piece may require several readers for approval or questions to the writer before an answer is given.

Discussion! Embracing! Temporary rejection! Contention! Wrestling! Friendships torn apart and darned! Universal embracing! Repeat.

After first reads, promising pieces are nominated to a longlist. The editorial team whittles the longlist to the shortlist, which goes to the guest judge for final winning selections.

Our process starts with editors reading and voting individually. If a work is a unanimous yes or no from 3 or more editors, it's accepted or rejected without discussion. Works that get mixed votes are discussed by the whole editorial crew and then voted on. If the majority of editors want to accept it, we put it in the issue.

There are no other additional evaluation parameters, except the ones I have mentioned above.

Pieces are evaluated by an admin for anonymity and word limit, then by the Editor-in-Chief, then an editor (we have specialized editors for articles, creative prose, poetry, and book reviews), and then by at least two peer reviewers. An editor makes a decision based on input from the peer reviewers. Most pieces go through at least one round of revision, sometimes followed by an additional round of peer review, before a final decision is made.

After I read something I also consider when I can publish a piece .
We are extremely busy so now I tend to only take one from a writer as the waiting list is long .
But honestly after my choice to publish something that's pretty much it.

It must be acceptable to each of my co-editorial colleagues

For written work, we usually do a quick Google of a line to see if the piece is online elsewhere, as we do not accept already-published work.

Every piece is evaluated solely on merit.

Once one of our Readers has passed a story onto second read, then usually two Editors will read and discuss the piece before coming to a decision. A third Editor will be brought in to break a tie.

I have a real penchant for interesting pieces, and will sometimes choose something that needs work because it gives a unique take or because it is inspired by an unexpected artwork. How much "back and forth" or editing work it will take is also a consideration. I don't like to make radical edits to pieces, not just because my own time is limited, but because I respect a writer's voice and want to keep their work in tact as much as possible. Revising to strengthen or to correct errors is one thing, but revising to impose my own preferences on a piece is something I try to avoid.

If a reader says, “I love this one SO MUCH,” that’s usually enough to convince the rest of the team; rarely do we not empower our newer editors to take a story or poem to the finish line and offer two, three, even four rounds of revision. I remember stories at The Paris Review that never saw their words in print because the authors walked away from edits. Likewise, The New Yorker staff used to edit short fiction for as long as a year before publication.

We read every submission separately then get together and make the call. Our judgements are based solely on the quality of the work.

All of our stories have 2-3 editors weighing in on them. An initial editor, and a final say. If there is a large disagreement between the two and no rules are being broken, we will bring in a third editor to break the tie. This has only happened once or twice from the thousands of submissions that we've gone through at this point. After we agreed if a story was being accepted or not, it progressed. If there is no real editing needed, we accept it as is. If there are some minor edits that we'd like to see, we let the author know that we want to accept the story and have a few small requests (which can be changed or denied, and we go from there.) If major edits are needed, we usually work with the author and will take 1-2 revisions if the author is open to making changes and is amenable to the edits. At the end of any of these paths, if an agreement is met on the story, we accept, and contracts are sent!

We keep pieces for consideration, then have another review to finalize the issue as it is difficult to tell how many poems will be in our layout which is not one poem to a page. It also helps us to decide about poems that arrive in a several month period based on themes or uniqueness rather than making decisions based specifically on the worth of the individual poem. It's like casting a play, or an orchestra. I suppose many writers don't understand that and focus on whether we are taking their poem or story. Of course, there are poems we take no matter what else, too.

Mature attitude

Unfortunately, we cannot accept every piece that we admire. However, in our meetings, we do try to articulate what counts as evidence for the rightness of our editorial decisions so that they are not the result of a dictatorship of mere personal interests.

Pieces pass through a round of evaluation by our readers, and senior editors decide on pieces that come to a tie.

Timing. We like to publish works that speak to the moment, particularly, since we are based in Washington D.C. often the national moment.

There are only two of us. If one likes the piece and the other doesn't, we negotiate.

None.

It is passed to an assistant editor for a quick perusal after I make my decision..... sort of a check and balance system within.

If at least 3 editors vote yes on a piece, we begin to discuss the possibility of publishing it, but we don't actually publish a piece unless all the editorial staff is in agreement.

If a story is about or from the viewpoint of a traditionally underrepresented group or member of that group, I may engage the author in a conversation about their experience to help the decision-making process.

Most pieces are read by at least three readers and discussed amongst us before being accepted. I like to see poems that don’t fall apart when discussed in detail. It’s not enough to have a great metaphor. You need a great metaphor with precise line breaks with enviable word choice with gorgeous imagery with impeccable musicality. At the time of our editorial discussion, we’re also considering how submissions fit together for a particular issue. It’s important to have an eclectic set of poems that still complement each other. At times this means we have to turn down a poem we really like.

Each piece is read by both Foreshadow editors, who discuss any issues they may have about the piece. Sometimes we will ask writers for clarification or to change something before deciding to accept it.

None.

All submissions are evaluated by a group of three to five readers initially. After that, I look at them myself. From there, the manuscripts are whittled down to the five finalists, which are passed along to our guest judges, who read blind and vote on a winner.

Each piece is read by several readers. If their overall reaction is "yes" or "maybe," the piece is then read by the genre editor and associate editor, who are also free to select pieces with "no" votes from readers if something gets their attention. The genre & associate editor then run pieces they want to accept by the editor-in-chief before contacting writers to accept a piece and offer any edits. While we occasionally accept pieces in need of more thorough revision, we aim to accept writing we would be happy to publish as-is, then work with writers to make it even better.

We try to have a mix of genres, so if we have too many of a specific type of piece, we are less likely to accept it for the coming issue.

As I mentioned, we might go back and forth with different readers and editors if our opinions on a particular piece vary. We have to take the entire issue into account—have we already accepted something with a too similar theme or form? Now that we’re a paying market, we also have to manage how many acceptances we have in total.
This is all to say, if your work is ultimately declined, please try us again. We’ve accepted multiple writers who we previously declined, and we’re grateful they continued to trust us with their work.

Our acquiring editor can make the call based on their read of the material. Sometimes this can move very quickly.

Just me. You get one read through.

The editors and readers read each piece and discuss, except in the case of poetry. Poetry editors and guest editors make the decision.

We review a contributor's published work, so knowing your website (if you have one) with a listing of your previous publications is helpful.

There are several phases to this contest.
The first reader takes out the obvious rejections - including stories that have been previously published (we can't accept them)
We end up with several categories:
Finalists - there are 8 of these only. Those 8 stories go on to 4 judges randomly chosen each quarter and there are 3 winners selected from the 8 finalists
Semi-Finalist - there 10 to 12 of these each quarter. They receive a critique from our coordinating judge, Jody Lynn Nye.
Silver Honorable Mention - No set number - Very good stories.
Honorable Mention - No set number - Nicely done, good solid writing skills. Could have an over-used trope, not strong enough, characters not engaging, but still a good story.
No win - the rest, including poorly written stories, even a nicely written romance or western. Not what we are looking for.

Nothing much. If we are interested in your piece, we read it a couple more times. The team is busy so we'd rather embrace error-free works. We check, however, for traces of discrimination and transgressions.

We can generally tell quite quickly if we think a piece will fit with our zines. If we like a piece of art that has been submitted, but the quality of the image isn't great, we will email and ask for a better image to be sent before choosing to include the piece. If we really like a piece of writing, but it is too long to fit into the zine, we will ask if we can include an excerpt instead. We don't have the capacity to fully edit pieces of writing, and will assume if there are any grammatical errors in a submission, that this was done purposely. Writers are encouraged to proof-read before submitting to us.

IF we accept a work, and there is a typo, or a word misspelled, or a tense shift that fails, we will contact the author to point these things out.
IF we reject a work that shows that either or both the work itself and/or the writer has promise, we may suggest revisions, if technical, or suggest the ways in which the work might be improved, or, if the work itself is not quite right for us, invite the submission of other work. There is no magic bullet, however, and just because we suggest some corrections and/or revisions, or if we invite future submissions by the author, that is, in and of itself, no guarantee of future acceptance.

Once a unanimous decision is reached, no more evaluation is required and we reach out directly to the author to begin the production process.

We have a few round of submissions. Our editors and first readers review a piece after it's submitted. About 40% or so of pieces pass through to the second round. We divide these second-round fiction three ways between our two fiction editors and myself, with the poetry divided two ways between our poetry editor and myself. We each pick a handful of second-round pieces each week to move into the final round of submissions. I pick one story and one poem a month from our about two dozen final-round stories and one dozen final-round poems. After we choose the pieces, they go through multiple rounds of edits before they appear in Orion's Belt.

Every submission needs to meet the three criteria which define seaside gothic literature, which are specified at the point of submission. As well as this, for a submission to be accepted it needs to feel authentic, as if the writer has ripped it from their very soul, and it has to make me fall in love with some part of it.

If I'm uncertain about a story, I will put it away for a few days, then re-read it.

Winning work usually goes through several rounds of reading in comparison to other excellent work under consideration before a final decision is made.

Genre editors draw from their own experience and preferences and are trusted to accept or decline according to our vision for the journal. The Editor in Chief and Associate Editor keep a running tally of estimated page use and alert genre editors re: how many more works can be accepted in each genre. We meet frequently as a team to look for balance among genres, and discuss prize decisions as a team, with genre editors having final say.

Sometimes a piece is given consideration over several consumptions and it might take weeks to mull over the truth of it. It's very specific to the submission's dynamics.

As submissions come in, I often give them a first read and then categorize them into Yes, No, Maybe, Probably. Then after the deadline, I go back to the Yes pile and see what I still like. I will also check the Probably pile. If there are slots left over, I'll go through the Maybes. And as mentioned, if something needs just a little more work, I will have a back-and-forth with the writer to see if we can mold it. I'll often read things through a few times on different days to see if it stands up to multiple readings. Only then do I send out an acceptance. It means it takes a little longer, but I want to give every piece a chance. It doesn't seem fair to reject something because I'm tired one day.

We may consider if a submission is very similar in form/language/concept to a piece we recently published, but quality of work is always most important when evaluating submissions. Our reading process is fairly streamlined, and we don't usually mess with it.

Reading, editing and proofreading.

It's a painful fact of life that we get more high quality submissions than we can publish. Our final evaluation is a side-by-side comparison of submissions with an eye to length and space available. At this point, we also consider how each piece fits with the other pieces accepted or recently published pieces.

It should be well-written and entertaining, not previously published and the writer's own work.

Editors work together to make final decisions. We take a team approach at Split Lip. Each piece is read by multiple members of our staff. If we see potential but have concerns about a piece, we will often contact the writer to assess their willingness to work on edits.

Again, this will very from section to section. The Essays team has a different process than the Interviews team which has a different process than the Fiction section, etc. Often, what determines if it's going straight to the editor or being vetted by readers and Assistant Editors first is the amount of submissions that section receives. Essays, Fiction, and Poetry receive a tremendous volume of submissions and it would be a huge undertaking for one individual. Also, the editorial staff works on a volunteer basis, and they have real-life, pay-the-rent jobs.

If the piece is good, we like it and it fits with the issue we are building, we accept it.

If we like your work, we'll ask you to submit the full manuscript.

It goes through the eyes of our short stories editor first, and then I give each piece final approval.

None.

Each of our Long-Long Listed stories is read by three different readers. The list is then reduced to approximately 25 for a final selection process. Six Short Listed stories are then sent to the judges.

Every story is encountered by at least one editor. Promising stories get at least three reads. It is common for us to request revision prior acceptance. We do not require consensus for a piece to proceed to a request for revision.

If I am wowed by any material, it is returned to later in the day. If it still wows me, you will hear from me in a positive manner. I do suggest re-writes if something is a bit off and the rest of the material is sound.

If a submission catches my interest, I will ask for the full manuscript. If the story is engaging and I like it, I will then start evaluating a piece based on how well it is written. If a manuscript is full of errors, I will probably pass on it even though it is a good story.

There are numerous points that our judges keep in their minds before accepting the submissions. The most important ones especially for poems are like analyzing the poetic devices and techniques, poet's vocabulary, poetic symbols, overall meaning and purpose of the poem, voice tonality of the poem, storylines, rhyming schemes, and relevancy to the theme of the contest among others. We always seek submissions that stand out from the crowd and yield uniqueness on their own.

If I like a story enough to consider this far, my next question is: what needs to be done to make it a Guilty story? That may mean light editing for formatting and/or style or it may mean requesting rewrites from the author. The question then becomes whether or not the slot I'm considering the story for is best filled by that story, once editing has taken place, or if something else I'm considering would be the best fit.

If we aren't sure about a submission, we'll show it to another editor. This is where we ask for revise and resubmits. If we are really unsure still, we might take a look more at their credits and how likely they would be to share it on social media. We want people to read what we publish, so honestly it makes a big difference if people are active or not on Twitter.

No additional evaluations, though we do consider submitted work for in-print publication, as well as online publication.

Cavar: We consider fit, length, whether or not we've published a writer recently (we almost never publish the same person in back-to-back issues, though we welcome submissions from previous contributors), and how many slots we have left in a given issue. Sometimes, we'll decide to accept a piece that needs minor revisions, so we also assess the time commitment that a given set of revisions might require, and confirm with the writer that they are open to working with us.

We have a two rating system, so each story is reviewed twice (both for the content and its suitability for audio production). Then a final read is done by our Managing Editor before it's finally accepted.

Pieces will go through the assistant editor and the head editor before being officially accepted. Evaluations will include the piece's unique contribution, emotional drive, and purpose.

Both co-directors have to read and love it.

No other. The editor assigned reads and makes decision. Only on rare occasions is a second opinion necessary.

The decision of whether a story moves to the semi-final or final rounds of judging is made on the work as submitted. The decision of the judges is final.
Authors of winning stories might receive some editorial suggestions prior to publication.

We go through multiple rounds of reading, winnowing down the choices in each round, so each story that is published has been read by the majority of our editorial staff.

For the press, most of our submissions are reviewed by a slush reader, then bumped to the managing editor. If we're working with a guest editor, they receive 5-10 of the final submissions for reading. Then, the decision to publish is a collaborative effort between the managing editor and guest editor.

We divvy our pieces between editors. We don't have a big team, so individual editors choose pieces. They then get edited and put on the site.
Julia

If it's Holmes and the fans will like it, and the author is ready to roll their sleeves up and engage the fans that's all that's needed above the good writing.

Requires little to no revision or copy-editing to be publication-ready.

A team of readers considers every piece, making notes and comments about the reasons for the yeses and nos. Then, the editors take the pieces with the top scores and hold a reader meeting, asking for discussion. Sometimes, these meetings go as planned, but sometimes, the piece voted the highest actually doesn't make it because the readers felt more or wondered more about other lower-scoring pieces. It is at these reader meetings that the final pieces are chosen based on the mutual decisions of the group, lead by the editor and assistant editor of that genre. This is where you can really tell that our choices are all about what feelings or emotion were provoked by the piece.

None.

We hate sloppy work, however creative, so a text which would demand very heavy editing will struggle to be accepted. However, we are open to submissions from around the world, and we are happy to make allowances for multi-lingual authors whose writing in English is strong but not perfect; in such cases we collaborate with the author to bring out the best in their work.

The topicality and poignancy of titles is a major point of note.

I share the top 10-15% with judges who have been previous winners. They also give feedback and tell me their choices for winners.

All submissions are read by at least 2 readers. Final selections are made by a committee of at least three editors, including the managing editor.

If it's really good, it's obvious. In uncertain cases several editors look it over and discuss. Occasionally we suggest revisions if we think there's something fine there that deserves a better chance.

Because we have a specific range of subject matter, we often get several excellent submissions on the same topic (say, breastfeeding, or caring for an aging parent). In the interest of balance and variety in the finished journal, we can only accept a limited number of pieces on any one topic. We also aim to include diverse voices and views on motherhood.

Each reader votes and leaves a note, which spins into a conversation. Debate is usually a good sign! One factor we consider is editability: Would some revision strengthen the piece, and would the author be open to considering it? We don’t often do conditional acceptances. If the piece is ready enough, we’ll take it and allow for the possibility that the author considers the work finalized; if it shows promise (and these are the most exciting), we’ll invite you to try us again, which is what everyone should do whether or not we explicitly say so.

Every issue develops a personality. Not just a theme, a personality. Will the piece get along with the others?
Rejections that refer to something as "not a good fit" sound cliche, but it is so true.
An Editor I like recently said the purpose of her publication was; "to make contemporary fiction accessible".
That is something we strive for as well.

Typically, all submitted work receives at least 2 preliminary reads before moving to the next and final stage of review by the main section editor, who ultimately decides if a piece is accepted.

We tend to read each piece at least twice through -- we make an initial decision and then prior to sending the response, we read it again to make sure the decision sticks. Some days you might read a piece in a completely different way than others. We like to allow for that.

Each piece must be previously unpublished. Once we have a short list, we confirm that the piece is available. We strive to have an even mix of patient/healthcare consumer/caregiver/advocate stories AND healthcare professional stories, but we take the best of the best first and foremost!

We have a system wherein two readers (or three, if a tiebreaker is required) read a submission. If two readers like it, it goes to the editorial collective. The collective discusses each held piece, takes notes, and decides as a group if the piece works in the pages of CALYX. Sometimes an acceptance is contingent on the author revising or cutting parts of the piece. We often ask for small changes, such as paring down scenes or moving the order of stanzas or paragraphs. Anything larger that would involve rewriting is framed more as a suggestion and returned to the author to resubmit another time at their discretion.

Each piece usually goes through the editing process. Because so many of our submissions come from non-native speakers or previously unpublished writers, almost everything we publish gets a polish. We take a hands-on approach to editing and sometimes our feedback is extensive.

We check everything for plagiarism, of course, and whether or not it is published elsewhere.

None.

This is our system: when a submission comes to us, I immediately send it to one of our editors who reads it and determines straight-away if it is or is not publishable. If it is not publishable we tell the submitter that we are declining the piece within 3-5 days. If it is deemed publishable, then the piece goes into our database and over a course of weeks, it is sent to at least 2 other readers before a final decision is made. If it is accepted, we inform the submitter when that happens.

We look for previously unpublished material of high quality. That's it.

No additional evaluations.

There will always be a line edit for house style, for approval by the author.

At least two editors read every accepted piece.

SAND is very democratic, so once editors decide on shortlists, the entire team has a chance to chime in before we make final decisions on what to publish. It’s beautiful to see how certain stories resonate with so many people who have such different tastes and to see the passion that comes out of the team during those discussions.

Genre editors and readers make their votes and forward them to the editorial team for review. The ET then votes and comes to a consensus. Most of the time, there is a robust discussion. Once in a while and not very often, a piece is an immediate "yes" and gets accepted quickly by the ET.

Sometimes we will consult with each other whether through private Facebook messaging, sometimes Twitter, sometimes via email, usually via Facebook group chat, or Zoom conferences.

If I think it's great, then I get my interns to read it. If they like it, then I talk to the author and request the whole ms. If I like the whole ms then again it goes through the interns.

Multiple editors and readers offer opinions on any given text. If the chain of readership remains unbroken the book is usually published after a lengthy discussion.

Sometimes I make suggestions to an author and reconsider a revised manuscript.

Open Arts Forum tries to maintain a collaborative environment m. To that end, every member can “Feature” their favourite work. It goes without saying that featuring your own work is bad form, and will be noticed.
This featured work is monitored by the editors when looking for new material to publish.

It’s really a gut reaction—we either know it’s for us, or it isn’t. Sometimes if we love the work but something may need fine-tuning—like the ending, or the opening sentence, or something like that—we will discuss it with the writer before we even make an offer to make sure they’re willing to work with us. A couple of times we’ve worked with something extensively because we loved it, but that’s the exception, not the rule. Most of what we take requires very little work. We really look for something that’s highly polished, and we have turned down pieces we loved because they’d require too much effort. On a couple of occasions we’ve asked the writer for a rewrite, but that’s also rare. We have to really love it to ask for that.

If there's potential, we read and discuss the work. If we decide it's a real possibility for us, then one of us replies with suggestions for revisions if that's called for or simply sends an acceptance.

Before being accepted, your work has been seen by at least three sets of eyeballs that work for Flora Fiction. Final evaluations depend on applicability to the issue theme and cohesion with other works.

any questions, major or minor, that an editor has about the piece goes to the other editor, & sometimes to a third reader.
& even a fourth reader. it usually does not come to that.
& sometimes we ask a contributor to change something, esp. in translation, if the english in a particular passage has not been fully translated either conceptually or idiomatically from the original language...
most writers & editors are fine with copyediting that addresses really awkward translation issues. sometimes there are cultural assumptions that do not carry over.

Once a department editor puts a story under consideration or recommends for resubmission, our Editor-in-chief, Fran, reads it and decides if we will work further with the story.

Occasionally our editors make suggestions which are forwarded to the the author. The authors evaluate our suggestions and do their own revisions if they agree with us. We may sugggest cutting paragraphs or stanzas, sorting out problems of clarity, or maybe changing a single word.

If a piece is accepted, a senior editor will work with the author to do an in-house edit prior to publication.

The pieces that are most liked by readers and genre editors are then assigned to other editors and readers, casting a wider net for input. The most liked from that pool are then discussed in a decision meeting, in which editors and readers talk out their reader responses and opinions so to find the best work for publication.

The piece will go through multiple board member reads. Our editorial board is so unique in that it is shared between three undergraduate universities across the country and our members are extremely diverse; from Biochemistry majors to Classics to Engish majors. This diversity in board members allows the work to be approached from multiple perspectives from experienced close readers to those who might just enjoy picking up a copy of the Foundationalist for a rainy day.

Initially I send all pieces to my 3 associates editors for a quick yes or no, or "needs editing." I make the final judgment based on their evaluations and my own. We sometimes will work with a writer to edit their piece and then accept it.

Before a piece is accepted, our editorial team has our final editorial meeting to go over the pieces that we have marked as "maybe" and/ or "yes". Each member discusses his or her own editorial evaluation particularly if a piece has received a range of opinions by different editorial members.

We narrow the list down to five to ten finalists and then the two judges discuss which story will be named the winner and which are runners-up or honorable mentions.

We usually have a minimum of three pre-readers, and in the case of the Chekhov competition, a final guest judge.

We have a small group of peers who share in the reviewing process. I have learned that my own taste and judgment around a given story is far from adequate; my colleagues have chosen works that I'd never considered, and which went on to do really well for our publication and the author. This is one reason why reviewing submissions can take a long time with us. We want to make sure the right people are reading a given submission.

N/A

None.

There's really no accounting for taste.

We read on three levels: we have volunteer writers, editors, and academics who read general submissions regularly. If they like something, they forward it to the senior editors. If it passes their scrutiny, it goes to the Executive Editor, who generally makes the final decision for prose. Our senior Poetry Editor makes the final decision for poetry.

We put together issues, and sometimes it comes down to which pieces would fit into the issue we’re already building. However, we do accept for future issues if a piece really stands out but doesn’t fit in the latest upcoming issue.

Two main steps. Initial readings to pick out the best pieces. Then, working with the authors to get the works edited.

Nikki and Trini both read the submissions and we decide together. We may disagree about some and go back and forth, but we always settle on the issue jointly.

Does it have something to say?
Is it original?
Do I like it?

Gut reactions aren't a science.

Does it fit into the current anthology? Does it fit into the magazine (if submitted to the magazine)? Does it contain gratuitous violence of sex scenes? Is the writer applying (consciously or not) the principles outlined in the book How Stories Really Work?

Plagiarism is not acceptable. We delete such articles.

Each piece is read and discussed by my staff of undergraduates. Any piece that they find promising is then read by me. Pieces that are on the bubble are then discussed further--either by myself and the Managing Editor, or with the entire staff.

Time is the most important. After the first reading, we set the piece aside and then come back to it over a few days. If it continues to spark, producing the same thrill as the first time we read it, then we know it's gold. So the longer your piece is under review, the better your chances. We almost never accept a piece without waiting at least a few days to check its shine this way.

Our editors review submissions independently, then meet weekly to discuss what they have read.

All editors may vote on submissions in all categories, and we have a designated "expert" in each category whose decision breaks a tie. Each piece sometimes has three readers, sometimes as many as five.

We take the stories we've accepted and print them all out. We then take them to the Canadian wilderness and place them each on a small pyre and light them. Whichever pieces produce a blue flame are the ones we keep. The rest are offered as a sacrifice to nature.
Then, we also consider how they'll fit with the other pieces in the issue. Even though stories aren't based around a theme, they often feel connected.

If it's publishable we also consider whether it contrasts well with recent publications. If we've published several dark stories we would now like something a bit lighter. if we've recently published some very short pieces, we'd now like something a little longer. We also like to publish seasonal pieces but we need these at least a week in advance.

Obviously there are contract negotiations, and sometimes that can pertain to the manuscript itself i.e. we submit the offer on the basis that 'x' be changed to 'y'. But generally speaking we take on the book as it is and then allow the editorial process to produce the best possible version of the manuscript.

Editors read the material accepted by each other and discuss how it will fit in the upcoming issue. This allows a full-range of perspectives on what we publish to prevent bias.

Each submission is read by at least three readers, and sometimes more. The editor of each genre then looks at all the comments and makes the decision based on the sensibilities of the majority of the readers. If the responses are divided, then we discuss our reasoning until we reach a decision. Editors are encouraged to argue in favor of works they fall in love with.

Once we decide to accept a submission, we print it out and painstakingly fold each page into a tasteful origami of robotic genitalia. Then we offer the pages to the machine spirit. Any pages that are rejected by the mightly silicon mind are torn from the story and we reread the story sans those pages. If it still makes sense, we keep it.
No, seriously, we just read your stuff and if it's good and we laugh, we accept it.

Each piece gets multiple reads before an acceptance--typically three, plus discussion in a staff meeting.

We use second readers / associate editors.

Just editorial review.

As the publisher I like to find myself in agreement with the choice of the fiction editor - I have never rejected such choices yet.

Review of previously published works, if available online.

As a woman and ethnic minority in Singapore, I created The Tiger Moth Review with specific objectives in mind, one of which was to create a space for diverse voices to engage with nature, culture, the environment and ecology. Hence, while the quality of submissions take precedence, I do pay attention to representation in terms of each submitter's place of origin/ residence and their identity markers (gender, ethnicity, class, etc.) so that each issue, I create spaces for a range of voices with intention and purpose, with the goal to include and diversify.

I think it's important for submitting writers to remember that accepted manuscripts are not superior to rejected ones. We do such a limited list and we want that list to be eclectic and inclusive in terms of gender, race, and other measures. Many great manuscripts get rejected just because of timing (e.g. I might have just accepted two men and am looking for two women, so if you happen to be the next guy up in the queue, you might be rejected no matter how good the manuscript is.). In fact, many of the manuscripts I've rejected have gone on to be published elsewhere and win prizes. Do not despair (too much).

If there's maybe a line or two that isn't working for me, I'll ask the writer for some edits. But basically, once I get something I love, it is accepted.

Our first readers read most if not the entire pieces for suitability for the magazine and "ready for publication" (which means -- are there typos? Is it formatted correctly? Does it have an ending?) and then they also consider any impediments to publication or yellow or red flags. For instance, if there is a racist or misogynistic character, how is the story handling it? There's certainly a difference between a racist character and a racist story -- we have featured a lot of stories with racist characters, but we are not interested in publishing racist stories. Plus, they note whether they LIKE the story or if it is doing anything interesting that they admire. In the last call for submissions, we received about 500 stories and fewer than half were approved by the first readers. Then another reader looks at it -- are they seeing what the first reader saw? If they like it too, then the senior editorial team reads it. Generally, the assistant editor reads it first and we try to prioritize the works that got unanimous votes first, so that we can reach out to the authors as quickly as possible. For the stories with mixed reviews, the senior editorial team reads those next -- a surprising number of stories we publish do NOT have a unanimous approval from the team, but that's good. We like our controversial picks.

There are three of us here at the office. Rarely do we consult our board of auxiliary editors , but on occasion , we do so.

All manuscripts and contests submissions are read by at least three editors before it is sent to either our judge or our associate editors for decision.

I have a major say in what we publish, but I get the advice our founder, Patricia Florio. Our contest judges are always writers I respect, so I turn to them for advice as well. I never reject or accept anything on the first reading, unless it strays too far from our guidelines. For example, we have. 2500 word limit. If the piece is 10,000 words, i will skim it. If it’s good, I will suggest the writer either submit again, either with a revision closer to our word count or an entirely different piece.

No special secondary evaluations are engaged: it's a brisk and simple decision.

Most pieces are initially evaluated by a single first reader. About 20% of randomly selected stories are initially evaluated by a small team of first readers who discuss the piece. Any story that comes out of the first read with an equivocal or positive vote goes to a second reader and/or section editor(s), and then to the associate editor and editor in chief. At the minimum, an accepted piece has been read by three of us. I compile my notes with those of the readers and editors and use them in the first round of developmental edits with the author.

For the Drabblecast we evaluate if the story will work well in audio as well. A fantastic story will still get passed on if it's really married to the page and doesn't work as well when read out loud. Other than that, no.

We have 2 or 3 editors read a piece before acceptance. Then we work with the writer on any edits that may be needed.

We have a first reader who brings all submissions that fit our 'brand' and wish list to me. If I think it has 'legs' I request other members of the team to read it. Then, if we haven't published something like it recently and it fills a hole in our upcoming releases list, I will seriously consider making an offer for it.

We usually have a team of interns and a submissions manager who review all submissions and narrow them down. Sometimes, we'll ask the author if they are open to making a few changes and resubmitting to make the story stronger.

We have 4-5 slots per month for each of the 5 genres that we acquire, so we keep our submissions open until we can fill those slots. If we get a bunch of stories in, then we'll pick the best 4-5 from each genre for that month's theme. The stronger the story, the more likely it is to be accepted.

We have what I would describe as an unusually thorough process. It's all mapped out here: http://louisville.edu/miraclemonocle/editorial-code-of-conduct

None. I'm the sole reader/editor for the publication. I might have to read a piece a second time to decide, but it never goes to any other desk for consideration.

Each piece gets read by at least two readers, plus an editor, plus me.

Back and forth reading between my co-editors and me.

All submissions come through me first. I'll read the piece, and if it shows potential I'll bring it to the weekly table discussion where the genre editors and general readers will discuss the merit of the work and whether or not its a good fit for our publication. Then I'll review the "IN" votes at the end of the night and make the final call.

We follow our submission guidelines. We don't print profanity, overt sexuality, glorification of the dark side of the force, or drugs.

The combined opinions and thoughts of our editorial staff. Acceptance or rejection is sometimes a difficult decision.

We have a tiered format, where student editors read the pieces, so it's usually read at least 3 times, then I review all the work, so our pieces are getting evaluated by different eyes and different perspectives. Finally, we choose everything as a staff, so each piece gets a through eval and opportunity.

It is always useful to do a plagiarism test (though that should be in the submission criteria) and double check that there is no inappropriate language or messaging (e.g. overtly racist or sexist or other discriminatory overtones).

For NUNUM there are two things. One, once we have that list of stories everyone (or almost everyone) agrees we want, we have to start thinking about how the individual stories will fit together into an issue. Two, because at NUNUM we work with a story and an image to create a piece for the journal, we have to think about the art we received during the same submission period and how we can work with both elements together to reach a final product that will satisfy everyone involved. For us this is the hardest step in our process but also oh so necessary because it is what gives us pieces with which we can knock on a stranger's door in the middle of the night and know they won't be upset once they see what lovely presents we have to give them.

None. We just decide based on the strength of the manuscript.

We have 5 poets on our editorial board. When a poet gets to the final round, I email the poet to make sure the ms. is still available and if the poet is open to small edits. We hope to publish books that don't need editing, but if the poems are amazing and a few small edits will make them even more amazing, I like to discuss this with the poet. We would never make a change without the permission of the author.

Every accepted piece is seen by at least two members of the editorial staff. If there is disagreement or confusion about a piece, we sometimes seek other opinions, sometimes putting the piece before the entire team.

Putting together the magazine is an editorial task in and of itself, so if we have too many stories about one thing or another, that upsets the balance. It’s rare, but I may need to move a story over into the next issue.
With that said, there can be several steps before a story is accepted. I’ll wait on revisions from a writer before I give them my final yes. Some stories will go through two or three rounds of editing. I’ve never had a writer not happy with the results.

Each submission is read by the two or three department editors; if they agree that a piece is right for Literary Mama, it is sent to the senior editors for approval. Department editors will work on a piece with the writer before sending it to the senior editors, and senior editors also suggest revisions before publication.

As a university-based literary journal, there are quite a few stages a piece of writing goes through before it's accepted for publication. It will initially be assigned to two readers. If both readers like the piece, the submission will go before the Bat City class (an actual class about the editorial process that's held every fall) and/or the editorial board. It's a very democratic process, and we try to handle submissions as we would want our own work handled.

Our editors and assistant editors read each submission and vote on it. Work that has positive votes gets sent to the "editorial table" where it's discussed. Then, we decide what to take. If an editor feels that a piece is an obvious take, it'll get sent directly to me right away. In this way, we try not to lose it to another journal.

Sometimes I go up to the roof and shout the piece at the moon, just to be sure.

No additional evaluation, if it's accepted it is accepted.

The piece must be approved by the entire editorial board. Those decision-making meetings are full of tears and libation.

Speaking for fiction: Our editors can vote "yes," "no," or "maybe." A piece needs two "yes" votes to be published; one "yes" and additional "maybes" succeed only if the managing editor approves. Multiple editors will always read your submission, and the managing editor will always read any submission given a "maybe" or above by even one person. This means you have at least two chances to make it out of the slush. Premium submissions work a little differently (premium cost more but offers a one-week response); for premiums, the piece vaults over the slush pile and straight into the managing editor's lap, which means he's the only one who reads it.
Poetry selection follows a similar model: the editor and managing poetry editor read through submissions and select roughly ten poems each quarter. Additionally, all premium submissions are read by the managing poetry editor.

First-round screeners look at each piece. The final judge reads some or all of each piece on the shortlist that the screeners put forward. I may consult with the final judge about the rankings of their top picks and whether to add extra runners-up.

Does it make me feel? That's it. Simple. If not, then it's a no.

Submissions that make first cut go on to our editorial board. Pieces that get a majority of votes are published. Pieces that do not get a majority of votes but have the strong support of at least one editor are eligible as "Editor Picks," which are also published.

We have three volunteer readers (who are experts in a particular genre) who review submissions periodically. If the two of us (editors) don’t agree on whether to move forward on a piece, we often ask for evaluation from one of our readers.

We use a three-tier system:
Tier 1: Two first-readers review the piece. If one gives a thumbs up, it goes to the genre editor.
Tier 2: Genre editor reviews the piece, rejects it or moves it up.
Tier 3: Managing editors and Editor-in-Chief have a meeting to decide if the piece is a good fit--whether or not we send a customized rejection, a revise/resubmit, or a (hopefully!) provisional acceptance.

Both of us read the piece multiple times, sometimes taking turns reading it aloud to each other. If we still aren't sure, we may set the piece aside and come back to it a few days later to begin the process again. We have accepted pieces within hours and others after several weeks.

There's always a back and forth. With the exception of most solicited work (and this is the case for some of those pieces, as well), one of us will find something we love, send it to the other editors and say, "What do you think?" A plurality of voices weighs in on each piece we publish.

Before being accepted each piece must pass through our initial reading phase, our second reading phase, and our editorial board.

Accepted pieces go through two rounds of editorial review before they are presented to our full editorial board, who hold a final discussion and vote. Before accepting a piece, we'll look at its use of language, its imagery (for poetry), its characterizations (for prose), and its clarity, coherence, originality, and vividness.

Editors' emotional responses to submissions are sometimes considered. We'll work with a writer if a piece moves us, but is not yet ready for publication.

First, every student in our Editing Literary Magazines class reads or views the submission and casts an up or down vote. Pieces that receive split votes require additional collective deliberation.

Regular submissions are reviewed and edited by our editorial staff. If a piece is accepted, an edited version will be sent to the author for review before publication. If it is a contest submission (held once a year), the finalists are sent to members of the editorial board to judge the winner and runners up.

To be accepted, a poem has to pass my scrutiny and that of other readers. Fiction and nonfiction have to be approved by the appropriate genre editor and other readers, and then I make the final call. Sometimes we know right away if a piece is or isn't for us and we'll accept or decline it quickly. Sometimes we need to think on it; if you've been waiting for a while, that usually means it's receiving extra consideration.

A piece published in SR will have gone through up to fiver or six readings. Sometimes genre editors, editors and I will communicate via email or in person to determine what to publish from what we have and considering the space available.

Each piece usually has two to three readers prior to acceptance. However, if the publisher falls in love with the piece before any other readers have weighed in, it will be published.

Every piece is read initially by one of our genre editors. 90% of submissions get rejected at this phase. The top 10% get passed up for our monthly roundtable. Every member of the editorial staff reads the pieces for roundtable. We deliberate at length over these pieces. Tears are shed. Blood is spilled. In the end, if the sentiment isn't overwhelming in one direction or the other, we vote.
Pieces rejected at roundtable usually get a high tier rejection letter that solicits future submissions. Genre editors have the discretion to attach a personal note or not.

The process varies within genres, but we regularly employ first readers, and genre editors confer with one another in order to make the best possible selections for the magazine.

After a submission is received, it is read by our Assistant Editors and Readers. Recommendations are then made to the Department Editors who will then decide if it is a good fit for our journal. Pieces that the Department Editors want to include are then read by the Managing Editor and discussed at our monthly Editorial meetings. Final decisions are made by the Department Editors in conjunction with the Managing Editor and the Editors-in-Chief.

At least three of the four of us will read the text from start to finish and we'll all need to agree it's something we must have for us to send an acceptance letter to the author. We'll also do some basic Google-fu on the author just to make sure we feel comfortable working with him or her (and we're really just screening for huge red flags that would make any employer run for the hills).

I ask myself if I'd want to read this story if I saw it posted in a social media feed. That means looking at the title and possibly the first paragraph and evaluating if it peaks interest right away. It doesn't have to, of course, but if it does, that's an added bonus. Other than that small evaluation, I'm honestly most interested in whether or not the story is exceptional in a way that is innovative and imaginative while still being entertaining.

The editor of each genre (poetry, prose, comics) makes their initial recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief. If the work in question is a translation, the translation editor consults with the genre editor before making their recommendations. Initial recommendations are then discussed and sometimes revised after conversations among the genre editors, the translation editor, the managing editor, and the Editor-in-Chief. Our primary consideration is literary excellence as we perceive it, but beyond that we consider other factors in order to produce issues that present a diverse range of voices, themes, styles, geographies, and cultures.

None

Our editorial process is a little bit different from most publications. We assign each story to two readers. A reader can vote "yes", "no", or "maybe". If a story gets at least one maybe it is sent to a third reader. One yes or two maybes will see the story sent on to the editors at large. These stories form the pool from which our Editors of the Month make their selections.

We evaluate the formatting. If there are tons of italics, for instance, or footnotes we may pass on a piece. Poetry which has strange margins will get a rejection no matter how brilliant we may think it is.

For pieces on the border between acceptance and 'close call status,' we generally argue a lot on our little Facebook staff group. This could take a while. Alternatively, we sometimes argue about which piece is a better fit from a given author. Usually, if we have been holding onto your piece for a while, it means you are under extra consideration. That said, in some other cases, we will read a piece and immediately know it's the right fit.

we do our best to make sure the work is, in fact, previously unpublished.

Each piece gets two to five readings. I read it when it comes in (Submittable users will see “Received”), usually wait a few days and then read it again one or two times and tag it (“In Progress”), then wait a few more days and read it a third time to see if I still feel the same (“Accept” or “Decline”). It is a joyful feeling when I read one for the first time and know it is a YES. Once it is accepted, it is read closely for word choice, grammar, and structure as it is formatted and yet again for spelling and typos as it is proofread.

If we have a piece that feels like it is one intense edit away from being great, then we try to work with authors to accomplish that. We're lucky to have a consulting editor with tons of classroom experience who is able to do that with writers who are game.

We have a somewhat complex process involving a number of different layers. I make the final acceptance decisions about prose in conjunction with my fiction and creative nonfiction editors, Victoria Campbell and Nicole Oquendo. Likewise with graphic narratives with which I consult with my graphics editor, Nate Holic. Ken Hart, the poetry editor, makes his own final acceptances, sometimes in consultation with me. Ken, Victoria, Nicole, Nate and I are the only four who are allowed to reject work. But we have numerous other staff who are reading, commenting, and voting on submissions and who draw our attention to pieces they think are worth an editor's look.

When a piece is an outright Yes or outright No, usually no additional evaluations.
Anything that leans between Yes and Maybe will lead to a conversation.
The most common evaluation, especially with a themed issue, goes like this: are there multiple pieces (whether by a single or different authors) that seem to be carrying out similar work? If so, which are most powerful, most unique?
We also have, I believe, an ethical dimension to our work as publishers: whenever I have a question about the ethics of a piece, I ask if the work contains an inherent interrogation of its own problematics or not. The answer is, and some might find this surprising, usually a direct yes or no.

Sometimes a rewrite request or a discussion with the author regarding certain elements of the piece will happen; but mostly, if we're going to accept a work, we do so on its initial merits, purely based on originality and quality, rather than subjecting it to marketing or other benchmarks.

It is screened by an associate editor first, then passed to Gerard Houarner, the fiction editor next. Gerard passes anything he wants to buy to me and I give it the final blessing. At that point, it is accepted.

I enjoy reading aloud to my family and friends. I assume that's OK with submitters. Seriously, though, we have an excellent old-school grammarian who does final looks and tells me if there are items I need to address with the author beyond punctuation. That's pretty rare, though.

Promising submissions are flagged, and will get another look. Editors and readers advocate for and debate submissions at regular meetings. These meetings are very lively. The senior editorial team reviews the submissions, and in addition to looking at each manuscript individually they consider such questions as: how would the piece fit in the context of the issue that is being put together; is this work that is unlikely to be found elsewhere; is the piece ready for publication, or would we want to work with the author on a revision.

Each manuscript is given to the editor in a particular genre (or genres) where it fits: poetry, fiction, nonfiction, drama, and hybrid/cross-genre. The genre editors review their manuscripts and compile a list with notes for the next round, then send these back to the editors. The editors cut the selection down to a manageable number. These manuscripts are then debated to decide a winner.

Every piece goes through multiple readers. If any of the readers like a piece, we all reread it and engage in a group discussion, after which the editor makes a final decision.

I think the last answers says it all.

After getting approved by at least one reader and one editor, each work then goes to a genre-specific editorial meeting where we decide on the contents for the next issue. Page length is taken into consideration, as is the degree to which the pieces work well together/complement one another. Sometimes we will request edits from the author. Rarely are these do-or-die requests, but it is important for an author to accept our gentle revision suggestions.

For fiction at fS I pick a few pieces that somehow caught my attention (sometimes because they're just obviously great, sometimes because they did something I didn't expect, sometimes just because I want more opinions on a piece) and then I bring those to our collective. Everyone gets to vote, and if they feel strongly, to explain their vote/argue. Then I can veto that if I really want to die on that hill (this has never come up - I trust our collective and generally agree). In any case, I then send the stories that got the "Yea" to our managing editor, and she gets the final say.

Multiple reads and considerations not just of talent in storytelling but also in structure, grammar, etc., in addition to word count, and its relation to other stories within the anthology (this last point, unfortunately, something the author has no control over.)

We have one factor that has come up from time to time: if we suspect that a serious, thoughtful piece will be perceived as satire by our readers, we will group-think it to determine if this is a risk, and gently reject it on that point. Almost everything else is editorially game.

An editor reads it in slush. If it makes it through the first round all the editors read it in a second round. Then, when we pick stories for the issue sometimes genre balance is a concern. So, a more unusual genre would give your story a better chance. (You probably don't want to write about vampires.)

Just three "yes" votes

If the story reaches the long list after being read by the initial reading team, then it is read at least three more times by the core Team who choose the final longlist and the shortlist. The shortlisted stories are then read by an outside judge, usually a literary agent. This year we have a BBC Radio 4 Short story producer as the shortlist judge.

The editor reads and reviews all works, and he may consult with the teams before making a final decision on what gets published.

Each piece is read by at least 3 editors, usually by 4, occasionally by 5 or more. After a solo read, the editors discuss the piece among their team members to determine if it's a good fit for the journal. The more editors to recommend it for publication, the stronger the pull.

We generally do a first pass in which we select stories that would fit the theme of the anthology We then consider them as a set, whether they would
provided needed variety, fit a need for more SF or fantasy, are beautifully written, and so forth. Ideally, the complete collection will be a fun reading experience.

We have consultants: scientists who fact check the hard science fiction, and folklore experts who will look at fantasies.

First reader, second reader, then the judge decides the winner from a pool of 10 finalists.

For some reason, stories that include Barack Obama get more credence than they would otherwise.
We are fond of humor, but we're more fond of smart, meticulous, funny writers who know how to structure a story, make you laugh and cry at the same time, and do the grammur.

All of our submissions are read by three readers before they get to each genre editor. All of our readers and editors come together at the pub to drink local brews and make the final decisions about what speaks to us as a whole staff and what doesn't. This thoughtful consensus is part of what makes our journal unique.

Our fiction editors discuss the merits of each piece before a decision is made, and our poetry editors often call attention to a particular poet or poem if we're really invested in the piece.

All of our submissions are first read by our extraordinary staff of readers (an updated list of whom can be found on the Masthead page of our website). After the first read-through, all submissions are assigned to our associate genre editors, who make the initial rejections. Finally, the most promising pieces are passed to the genre editors, who make final publication decisions, including selecting what issue the piece will appear in.

For the contests, the final decision is in the hands of the judge. However, after a story has won, we still edit it the way we would any other accepted submission. This may mean several editing passes between our story editors, copy editors, and the author.

Sometimes an editor likes a piece but is unsure of its quality or whether it works or not. We then go through a second read by the Editor in Chief (me), to give another vote on the matter. Also, sometimes a work is a crossover piece, a poetry/short story amalgam, so we assign multiple editors to works such as these.

Length is a factor. We try to include 20-25 pieces with each edition. If we select too many long pieces it means we can not include as many different works as we'd like. Works that have a seasonal element may be moved up or down the publication schedule to an edition that best suits them. For example, we wouldn't include a story about a blizzard in our Summer edition.

Each submission being considered is read by the entire team, including editors and the marketing director. Ultimately the publisher makes the final decision, but a positive response from the team makes the decision easier.

Each piece that is ultimately accepted is read at least twice. There are two main editors, so if we disagree on a piece, we fight with knives until there is a clear winner. Really, we just talk about what we like or don't like, what is working in the piece and what isn't. Sometimes the editor who wasn't into the piece changes his mind, sometimes vice versa. If we truly can't decide, we put it aside and come back to it.

Has it been published elsewhere? We are now only publishing original writing.
Do the facts check out?
Does it tie in with the tone of the site and our other posts?

The quality of the work is the only thing that is evaluated.

If one of us likes a piece we'll share it with the others and we'll all decide in an editorial meeting which pieces are finally selected for publication. Occasionally we'll query something with an author, but usually a piece is accepted as is.

An occasional round of edits. But if you're a strong writer, with a great comedic sense, we'll generally take care of all your grammar, spelling and structural issues on our own.

Each piece is read by at least two readers, plus myself. If we are considering it for publication, it will be read over and over and over again.

For poetry, I’ll put a poem through what I call the “reads like regular fiction” test. I’ll read the poem as if there were no line breaks. If it still reads okay, then it might as well be fiction. Poetry, to me, needs some kind of lyricism, some kind of sound structure and cadence that sets it apart from a straight fiction piece. I have a feeling many writers and editors are afraid of not sounding academic or “modern” enough so they’re afraid to rhyme a little.

A panel of readers evaluates the work, then the piece is ranked and voted on.

Karl and I read everything that gets submitted, if we like it we publish it. Our ideas about formatting, grammar and the like are described on our Mission and Guidelines page, our main concern is that text be readable. If it's readable and captivating then we're thrilled to publish it!

We use a three stage process to find publishable pieces. A first reader will push through a piece they like to our second readers, who go over the work with a microscope before putting it on hold if they believe it should be published. I then pick out the ones I feel best fit into an issue. Being the only grimdark publication paying pro rates, we have a really high rejection rate based on our current per-issue budgets, and there are times when sending that final rejection to an author whose work I really like but can't afford is almost soul destroying.

Once the shortlist for the competition is decided, the 20 shortlisted stories go before a panel of published writers. They all read the stories individually and score them. Through this process, we decide on a winner.

We read the submitted works and manuscripts and that work fits into what we see as relevant, then we accept it and publish it.

We read the submitted pieces and if it fits into what we are making for our journal, then we accept it and publish it.

I think a way to frame this question is to ask the writer submitting
1. Do you see how your work fits the flavour of Mascara?

We do a little bit of fact checking when comes to non-fiction pieces, as well as seeking to balance the number of voices we have from the Mid-Atlantic region with the number of voices from the rest of the country. Little Patuxent Review's roots and sustaining community come from Maryland, so we try to reflect that fact without being limited by it.

In house discussion

We both read the submissions, bumping the 'keepers' & 'maybes' to another, super-secret inbox. Once the reading period is over, the whittling begins. Some are perfect; some are solid but poor thematic fits; some appeal strongly to one of us but not the other. We're a democracy of two; accordingly there's a bit of horse trading, but in the end we only publish what we both love.

There are two of us who edit The Bond Street Review so usually a decision has to be unanimous but if one of us feels particularly strongly about a given piece and can make enough of a case to the other, it'll make it's way into print.
And each piece gets a minimum of two readings from each of us - sometimes a mood, environment, etc. will influence how a piece is received (for both good and bad) - two readings allows us to experience the work a few different times and then make the decision accordingly.

Each article gets evaluated by one editor, occasionally two if we need to think a piece over some more.

May consult with others for quality or relevance

None. The more method we apply to the evaluation of submissions, the less organic the result. Therefore, we keep our conversations about the submissions limited to its integrity as a piece within the genre it was submitted.

There's nothing besides the writing in front of me. I don't care where you've published when I'm reading your submission. I don't care who you studied under. I just want some sort of reaction, surprise (whatever you want to call it) when I'm reading the submission. Some sort of gut response to a voice that I would follow anywhere.

None.

Not every submission we love makes it into the magazine, and we'll even make a point to include a few submissions that we don't like very much. This way, we try to have works that sometimes go against our nature, which Dylan, and some scientists have told us, is how to keep evolving. Once a story passes one editor, it is shared with another. If any two out of four editors like a submission we try to include it and thereby avoid the committee approach.

Pieces that are accepted are read multiple times, once for the enjoyment of the work and once for clarity of the work, by each editor. Out of respect for the authors and readers, we want to present the work to our audience in the clearest, most professional way possible.

Besides checking if there is a name someplace in the manuscript? Poetry with fancy formatting is read and reread to see if the formatting has anything to do with the poem. In most cases it doesn't so we reject it with a query back to the author.

Its relation to the pieces already accepted for this issue in its genre.

All of the pieces get read by myself and my wife. If we're unsure or can't agree, we'll solicit one or two reviews from people whose opinions we value.

As long as the piece is within the word limit it's pretty much a case of whether or not I like it.

We have a very small editorial team, and we all read each submitted piece. After making a first pass-through, we meet and discuss the ones that have caught our attention.

We try to fit new work in with the patterns of publication, ie., fiction on Sundays, etc. and, as well, we to maintain a certain balance of genres (which is not to say we present equal amounts of each; we don't) in order to maintain a diversity of reading. However, if we love a piece of work we will make a place for it, no question.

If we love a manuscript, we'll have a conversation with the author before getting to the contract stage. We like to talk about edits we might want to do, tell the author about us, learn about him/her, and generally make sure we're a good fit for one another before moving forward.

As long as it meets the criteria then all pieces will be considered equally.

Are the optics right?
Will this be good for me politically?
How do I feel today?
Is this writer a good person? A bad person? How do I know this, and how do I feel about it?
Will I ever see that cute girl at the supermarket again? She had a dynamite smile.

We read prose pieces that are “contenders” several times and then print them out and discuss them. Poetry contenders are further evaluated by our poetry editors.

Four editors read the piece. We accept or not accept the piece by majority vote.

At least three individuals have read through the submission.

Once a piece has been screened in for consideration, it will usually be read by every member of the editorial board for the genre in question. Occasionally, a submission is returned after two or three board members have read it. Most screened-in submissions will be discussed at editorial meetings where final decisions are made. These meetings are held every six to eight weeks in order to lock in enough content for each quarterly issue.

Does the submission have a driver's license? Does the submission have a criminal record? Does the submission have a degree from a prestigious institution? An advanced degree? Any history of mental illness? Does the submission belong to any charitable organizations? Any questionable organizations?
Is the submission now, or has it ever been, a Communist? A terrorist? An anarcho-syndacalist? Is the submission now, and has it always been, loyal? Trustworthy? Red-blooded? God-fearing? Useful and law-abiding with a little twinkle in its eye?
Does the submission know that the path of justice is through pain? Does the submission know that the wages of sin of death? That a Frisbee is an unholy tool, that Jesus is telling you to do it?
Does the submission obey the voices in its head? How often? For what reasons? With what intentions? With what degree of commitment?
Has the submission read Adorno's impenetrable essay "On Commitment?"
Does the submission love me?

None. I go with my instincts. It's how I write, it's how I choose. It never fails. Love is love is love.

It is first read by a genre editor. If it is of interest, it is then placed in a packet of material to be reviewed by the entire genre staff. If it is reviewed well, it becomes part of a later, larger discussion determining what goes in the next edition, including but not limited to emerging themes and formal considerations.

Borderline pieces may be sent back to submitters with suggestions for improvement (rarely). We also use a consultant editor for 'disputed' selections.

Our process is simple—we vote on pieces and let the majority rule. Pretty simple.

Our readers identify suitable submissions. Then our editorial board selects the best of those submissions for publication by general agreement. Final choice in all instances, though, rests with the editor-in-chief. We do not employ outside readers, nor do we vet submissions though any external board.

Our review readers normally don't have time to read entire novels. The standard procedure is to read sections chosen at random to check for coherence.
If a submission is already accessible elsewhere on the Net, we will probably defer to prior publication. But we do occasionally make exceptions. If in doubt, please ask.

Every submission that gets a vote of yes or maybe on the first read is sent to the appropriate genre editor. They will then read it and filter through the maybes before sending their recommendations on to our editors. At this point, we all have a conversation about the work sitting in front of us, and try our best to work with the genre editors to pick the highest quality work that fits the needs of our upcoming issue. It can be a long process. But it is always a rewarding one.

Every submission we get is read carefully and at least twice. Sometimes, I work with an author on edits before accepting a story for publication, but not always. I've published several stories exactly as they were sent to us.
Due to time constraints, I'll usually only work with a writer on a story if it's 90% publishable or if the changes I'm proposing are minor or superficial.

Submissions with mixed votes from editors go to an editorial meeting to be argued over. Generally what this indicates is that there are things working in a piece, and something that isn't. If we can't justify the time it might take to correspond with the author and do (potentially) several rounds of editing, it usually gets passed on in the end. But sometimes what's up for discussion is how many of the five poems submitted we'll be taking. That's a happy meeting.

We read and discuss all submissions at least once. We then pick the top twenty five and from there we pick our top eight.

After readers pass on pieces to their genre editors we have editorial class meetings in which we all read the piece and have a discussion. These can get pretty heated. Sometimes things we really, really love end up not making it or not being the best fit.

Occasionally we'll ask an author to rewrite stuff. Usually, that just involves cutting out some parts...and that part is often the last sentence.

We read the story and if it is a good one, we publish it.

We have a meeting with the publisher, marketing associate and me, the managing editor and the publisher has to sign off. The marketing associate prepares a report about the marketability of the book. Sometimes it isn't very marketable and we go for it anyway, but we have a sense of the initial print run at that meeting.

Each poem that passes our initial screening process is read by a second editor, and our fiction submissions are read by as many as five individuals. In some cases, if we enjoy a piece but feel it needs some additional work, we may also contact the writer to gauge his or her level of interest in working with us on a revision. We generally complete the revision process with the author before we issue a final acceptance.

We have a team of readers who vote on each piece and assign a score. We tally the score and begin acceptances from the top. In the event of a tie, the associate editors break it.

No, just me reading it. I'll usually accept it on merit (if there is any merit in it).
Sometimes I'll run poetry past JBP, our proper poet, but he'll usually find fault with it when I just want to know if there is a spark in there!

My other reader, a poet/tech consultant, sometimes weighs in, but the writing has to register positively with me or it's not going to happen.

Nothing other than the editors reading and commenting.

If my deputy editor finds something she likes, I read it too and make the final decision. If I find something on my own, I usually accept it on my own, though sometimes I show it to her to check my judgment. It is just the two of us, and we make our decisions quickly.

Stories are accepted or rejected by slushers - stories accepted by slushers are passed through to the editor for a read and accepted or rejected. Occasionally, an unrelated beta reader may be brought in for an unbiased second take that the editor is on the fence about. Rarely do we ask for re-writes or resubmissions (and we do not take resubmissions - only resubmit if requested to).

If the piece is good but not "clean" we ask how much work it will be to get it into shape.

When submissions get really busy, I'll short-list several and sometimes bring in a second opinion on which are the best, but more often a story either makes the cut the first time I see it, or it doesn't.

Brilliant submissions are accepted right away, but that’s not the norm. If a submission is based on a compelling idea, but problems with structure or characters warrant rejection, I’ll offer the writer a chance to submit a revised draft based on comments and edits I’ve made on the original submission. If the writer accepts the challenge and resubmits a satisfactory revision (something we can work on from there), I’ll then offer a publishing contract before we continue with the project. An unsatisfactory revision will not get another chance.

We read first for content. Small typos, problems with grammar, anything that can be overlooked because the work is amazing - we’ll fix those in the copy editing process. Our editors have been known to make content revision suggestions, and will work with an author on a piece we really feel has promise and that we would be proud to publish.

The piece is read by myself and at least two other readers before being accepted.

We have a monthly editorial meeting to discuss submissions.

Each reading period lasts a little over three months, and during that time we hold any poems or short stories that grab our attention. At the end of the reading period, we take a few days to reread everything we've collected, and from there decide which of those pieces are going to be in the next issue. We usually respond to stuff in our in-box within a week, but if we've held on to a story for consideration it could be up to three months before a final decision is reached.
The same isn't true for nonfiction, fake nonfiction, and visuals. If we like it, we'll accept it on the spot.

Generally none, though on occasion a poem or short story will be passed to a member of the editorial board where it has manifest strengths and equally manifest weaknesses.

Material is judged on it own merit with selecting editors not knowing the names or previous publication credits of its author. We do check for plagiarism, however.

We have only three people who read submissions. One of these people makes the final decision about fiction; one has the final say about poetry. Our process is streamlined. You'd think that we would be faster about it, but no.

First, I read them. Then, if I like a piece, I send it to someone else on the team. Usually, we agree. If we don't, I just make a decision. I get final say on everything, but what other staffers think really does matter. They can persuade me.

None.

After a piece is moved to a short list, the editors meet and have intensive discussions about merits and issues with the piece. These discussions require several pots of coffee and the pieces are thoughtfully considered and ordered. Again, merit is what drives us to publish a piece: Is it linguistically interesting? Does it say something new about the human condition? Does it have charisma on the page?

Once I've accepted a piece, it's immediately scheduled for publication on the site. Minor grammatical or spelling mistakes are silently corrected. If I think there's room for ambiguity, I always consult the contributor first before going ahead with changes.

We do look at what we are currently publishing in the genre of the submitted piece and what the amount of our waiting books in that genre are. We always encourage people to resubmit at a later date if we are not accepting due to a large volume of submissions in that specific genre. Other than that, if the editors like a story then it will be accepted.

I may sleep on my decision about a story or work with an author on rewrites, but other than that stories are simply accepted by me. They do not go through a series of evaluations.

If we select your piece as a finalist, we are likely to suggest some editing. Final acceptance of the piece requires that you and our editor agree on the final edit.

My first reading and then three other readers.

At the Rusty Truck, it is just me--so there is not a formal process.

Size is certainly an issue.

A piece of work travels up the ladder: from MFA-student readers to a table discussion led by section editors to a final, editors' meeting and vote.

Sometimes I ask for changes. Once in a while, acceptance is conditional on the changes being approved by the poet.

Two readers who debate the merits of a piece. If a piece is promising we work closely with the writer on revisions.

Well, like I just said, a venture starts on the Floor, where it either is sent back into the deluge or sent up, via vacuum tube, to the Terminal where Lalo Telling, Maggie Murdoch and Otto (no last name cuz I think he's in the witness protection program) have a go with them. Then, surviving that ordeal, a work makes it's way to me in the Executive Suite where I decide whether I am going to publish it or not.All these steps along the way are viewable via the site's NEW FREE MARKET tab.

We'll make sure it hasn't appeared anywhere online (even on an author's blog).

After the first read, each selected piece goes to another editor. Sometimes we discuss a piece. On rare occasions, we ask for a revision.

An editorial assessment (general overview of the required edits is provided to publisher).

Generally, most submissions are read first by an intern or a volunteer reader; if he or she enjoys the piece, it will go before a Monday Group discussion of the entire intern staff that's moderated by our senior literary editor. If the group finds the piece of interest, the submission goes before our associate editor and the literary and senior editors who decide, generally by consensus, that a piece fits the journal's tastes and needs.

A story may be good and publishable, but some consideration is given to the balance of the current and past issues -- have we published anything like it. We occasionally ask for rewrites or a title change, but only if time allows.

We check for any plagiarism or offensive language.
We confirm with the author on any editorial changes.
We use a standard contract. We let them know again that we are a non-paying market.
We allow reprint rights to be with the author/ artist - so we tell them that they would earn less if their story gets accepted later for reprint by some other magazine.

How will it fit with our aesthetic?

If a reader is positively inclined toward a piece, it is read by two or three other readers before a final decision is made.

We consider if the story is like previous purchases, story quality, and whether the tone fits the "fun" goal of Escape Pod. It usually goes through a slush reader before I read it.

It's read by up to seven of our editors (always at least three or four) and if we feel changes need to be made, we will send editorial notes and ask for a rewrite. Most, though, we will accept as they are if we like them.

Each poem and story are read four times minimum. First a couple readers, then the editor responsible for the genre, and finally myself. Then at a certain point we all sit down, usually with an editorial advisor, and spend a day (from 9 am to 5 pm) reading and arguing and eating pizza. When we're done, we've got a book.

Sometimes we ask for revisions which may push the writer a little further.

Every piece that is accepted carries a responsibility, and I keep a mental checklist of various aspects I look for in the work, the number one being some sort of form or formal structure; I also consider the content and whether the work is unique or compelling in some way.
I also like to consider whether it fits with the overall tone of the journal, and sometimes specifically for a common element in an individual issue.

Standard proofing to correct any typographical or grammatical errors. If there are more serious problems -- such as dangling plot threads -- I will send it back to the author with notes on what needs fixing. Once the corrections are made (or the author makes a really good argument for leaving it as is), I'll accept the submission.

We're looking for work with "six appeal." :)

I think I covered that in question #9. There are three rounds of judging--first readings, cutting the stories down to the top ten, and then handing them to the prize judges who decide which of those top ten get published.

There are two stages in the selection process: a preliminary selection and a final selection. With the final selection, issues of space and overall thematic "fit" are sometimes germane. All submissions should be carefully proof-read and professionally presented. Our "house-style" follows that of the Times Literary Supplement, rather than what is known as "Oxford Style" (i.e., the "house-style" of the London Review of Books).

Fiction is read first by fiction editor Patrick Burns and then, if it’s something he likes, he will forward it to the editor-in-chief (me). Sometimes we’ll pull in nonfiction editor Josh Foster, who like Patrick is a superb reader (and writer) of fiction. I serve as the poetry editor, and rarely share poetry with other editors. I make the final editorial decision on all contributions.

There are associate editors whose opinion I often consult. No one person knows everything, or even a lot.

We correct typos, and format for the writings section of http://scars.tv and print and Internet (web page) issues of the magazine.

Most pieces need to stand the test of time over a month or two. Subsequent reads of a piece need to impress as much as the first read.

Monica and I both have to read it, and we both have to like it. We individually rate pieces 1 to 10, then we average our numbers. The highest make it in for the month. Sometimes we both just love a piece and accept it immediately. And if one of us really, truly reviles a piece, it’s out, the other opinion be damned. Oddly enough, it’s the ones we’re not sure of, the 7s and 8s, that tend to languish the longest, being re-read and re-evaluated as that Maybe pile grows.

(see above)

Any story that is being considered for publication will be read by several people, all of whom will give feedback if they think it needs revision, for example. We like to work very closely with authors, and perhaps half of the stories we accept go through some iterations of revision--although we are careful to stress that they are of course the authors, and they have the final say at all times.