Oo yeah we could do it that way as well. I kinda like that metric. Most Submitted To. We do have that data. I am wary about using acceptance rate as too high a value. I've seen some magazines who might have really low acceptance rates but when I investigate it's one person who is just really really picky and doesn't publish too often. I like this "payout multiplied by acceptance rate minus submission fee equals return on submission." But would need to take a deeper look at our stats. It might be better to start with, say, 500 magazines based on some metric, then rank those magazines with more data. But it'd leave out some newer ones. There are also different ways to consider the ranking. For example, by magazines who create the most opportunities like print, prev. published. sim-subs, readership, I went and looked at Erika Krouse's data on circulation and while she weighs it, I saw that only 25 or so magazines even list it, so even there, the prizes are doing some heavy heavy lifting. Also, something to consider is factoring prizes in bt on a much smaller scale