I've talked about how some "publications" aren't real publications at all, and poems that get published in some of them might actually hurt a poet's credibility as a good writer. So, what constitutes a genuine publishing credit?
First of all, we have to look at what makes some publications poor excuses for a literary magazine(and, unfortunately, many internet publications fall into these categories). This can be summed up thusly: 1.) Ignorance of copyright law, 2.) Poor quality poems published, or inconsistency in quality of published poems, and 3.) Publications run by "editors" who don't know what they're doing. Let me give you some examples.
There are quite a few online poetry publications and some print publications that assume they own any of the poems they publish. Do they? What do their governing rules and guidelines state? In some cases, no copyright matters are addressed, and that should be a big red flag to you right there. NEVER submit to a publication that doesn't state clear guideline and copyright issues. Others state, "copyright returns to authors upon publication", then turn around and violate that by publishing work in anthologies, online sites affiliated with their publication, or they "loan" your work out to their friends, all without your permission . I can't begin to tell you how many times I've seen this happen. Do you have a clear legal case in the matter if this happens to you? Yes, but far better to avoid such a publication in the first place, which brings me to this: NEVER submit to a publication that claims control of all work published in its pages.
If the publication appears to respect copyright law, it's next on the list to see what kinds of work is published. Now that doesn't mean "big names" are the only things published, but it should mean only high quality work appears on those pages. Are poems that are of the quality you'd like to attain published on those pages? If not, take a pass. You don't need to be affiliated with places that are in league with poetry.com . Better to wait til your work is good enough to be published in a high quality publication than to settle on substandard productions.
Next, it's important to see who is going to handle your work. Is this person a real editor? Does he/she have real, searchable, easily proven credentials as an editor? You'd be surprised at how many people attach labels to themselves without qualifications. "I have worked as an editor for 20 years", one woman said. I found out later she did the technical work on pamphlets advertising the circus in town. Not the kind of person you'd want handling your work, is it? How about the "I-am-an-English-teacher" or "I-have-an-English-degree" excuse? Totally inconsequential, since many great writers have neither English degrees nor teaching credentials (although some great writers have both.) A good editor is more along the lines of a great communicator and a great listener, someone who knows what you mean to say better than you do, and they know the best and quickest way to get there.
Here are a few general guidelines, but remember, these are only guidelines because exceptions do occur.
It's generally a good idea to avoid publications that have "blogspot" in their URL. No kidding. I mean, come on, if an editor can't take the time to move an online publication to a real domain, they're not going to take the time to put together a real publication.
It's also a good idea to avoid publications that don't follow their own publishing schedule. I'm not talking about an online site that is delayed by a little bit of time because of life circumstances beyond the editor's control (death in the family, illness, technical difficulties, etc.), but when someone leaves entire YEAR LONG GAPS (or more) between publications, that's a sign to avoid them.
Also beware of editors who publish mostly their own work. Are they running a publication to showcase great literary works, or are they looking to make a name for themselves on your art? These are usually the same editors who spend paragraphs singing their own praises, but don't highlight the authors they publish. A good editor takes the background, not the forefront. This brings to mind an editor who sent me his credentials: he had won such-and-such poetry contest (he didn't know that I knew it was a beginner's contest and that only 10 people had entered). He also listed a book he wrote (self-published) and then went on to snootily proclaim how he'd only publish the BEST WORK then proceeded to publish some of his own first. Let me tell you, his work is by far not the BEST WORK I've seen. Another pseudo-editor told me about a prize she won (also for beginners), and all the self-made boards she sat on. These boards consisted of writers who want to be published, not tired-and-true editors.
Don't be fooled by glitzy appearances. Anyone can slap a pretty photograph on a bright background, but not everyone can assemble a high quality journal. Look for high quality work within pages attractively presented, not gloss and fizz.
So what kind of poetry publication credit would you rather have? A credit in a journal shoddily run, or credit in places like The New Yorker and The Cortland Review? Be patient, work at your craft, and keep trying.
