Pushcart Prize Litmag Rankings -- Debate and experiment

As always, my ranking of literary magazines based on the number of Pushcart Prizes and Special Mentions they've won (see 2011 Pushcart Prize Ranking) has attracted some attention and some detractors who object to the list on one ground or another. Some people just don't like rankings, it would seem, and I understand that--usually there is some unavoidable subjectivity in a ranking that may render it valueless, or not of general applicability. I've tried to avoid this criticism by being as objective as I can based on data, understanding that the Pushcart Prize itself is the subjective judgment of the editors.

A respectful commenter on the above-linked ranking (I emphasize the respectful part because critics of the list aren't always so respectful) doesn't care for the list because, among other things, it encourages careerism in writers. (I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, although I don't think the list encourages anything.) You can read his comments for yourself and judge whether you find them valid. I don't, particularly. A writer must always take into account whether the work he or she is producing FITS into a particular journal, and whether the writer LIKES the work in a journal. One shouldn't submit to Ploughshares solely on the basis of its standing in my list. This seems to me to be understood. Perhaps I need to make a bigger point of emphasizing that. On the other hand, if Ploughshares is recognized in the industry as winning the most prizes (as evidenced by its place in my ranking), and I think my work would fit its aesthetic, then that would be a place I'd want to submit.

The commenter seems to think that there is no way to measure "quality" in a literary journal, and I would disagree with that.

Now, methodology in the list is a different matter. The commenter objects to the ten-year time period I use in my calculations. Fair enough. I like ten years maybe because I'm older and think a decade is a good amount of time to achieve some perspective. Yes, the industry is changing rapidly and there are new, high-quality magazines that don't show up very high on the list. On the other hand, a couple of years isn't much of a track record. Anyone can go out and buy this year's Pushcart Prize Anthology and see what's winning prizes and special mentions this year. In fact, you should do that. But one year isn't a lot to go on. What's the right number of years?

So I plan to stick with my ten-year list, but as an experiment I ran the list based on five years, and I've included below the top fifty magazines based on that period. Maybe you'll like this better.

I few observations. Ploughshares is still No. 1, but only barely, just ahead of Conjunctions, the No. 2 on both lists. One Story leaps to No. 3. Paris Review drops. Narrative, the only online journal on this shortened list, climbing a few spots from its ranking of 53 on the ten-year list.



2011 (5-years) Magazine 1 Ploughshares 2 Conjunctions 3 One Story 4 Tin House 5 Zoetrope: All Story 5 Southern Review 5 Threepenny Review 5 A Public Space 9 Noon 10 Georgia Review 10 New Letters 12 Ontario Review © 12 McSweeney's 12 Shenandoah 12 Mississippi Review 16 New England Review 16 Kenyon Review 16 Missouri Review 16 Boulevard 20 Virginia Quarterly Review 21 Agni 21 Antioch Review 21 Sun 24 Epoch 25 Paris Review 26 TriQuarterly 26 Ecotone 28 Iowa Review 28 Michigan Quarterly Review 28 Glimmer Train 31 Witness 31 Crazyhorse 31 American Scholar 34 Five Points 34 Narrative 35 Colorado Review 36 Prairie Schooner 36 Oxford American 36 ZYZZYVA 36 Post Road 41 Yale Review 41 Bellevue Literary Review 41 Image 41 Cincinnati Review 41 Pen America 46 Idaho Review 46 Third Coast 46 Willow Springs 46 New Orleans Review 46 Sonora Review