Being published isn't like getting a degree, where you have to amass so many units and credits and points: each time you send your work in, it's assessed all on its own. Where you've published in the past won't affect your chances at any point until you reach the point where you're a guaranteed number one, major seller.
When agents and editors see a list of publishing credits against your name they might look at them to see if they recognise any of your previous works, but that's about it. If you've had a short story in the New Yorker that will attract attention; but if you've been published in a series of publications the agent has never heard of they'll note that you're widely published and be glad. But it won't make them offer you representation if they don't like your work.
Dawn, if the publication you've been accepted into is a horrible mess then consider pulling your work. It's better not to be published at all than to be published badly.
Kinda thinking about it. Especially because a few authors have already pulled their work (which the anthology has been 'split into multiple volumes', mine was suppose to be in the next one), and the editors are trying to convince those that are left that we would just be stupid to leave now, that any publishing credit is good. Uh huh. The more someone has to defend the terrible job they are doing and try to convince others they are wrong, the more leery I get. Your work should speak for itself and you shouldn't have to defend anything.
Funny that they didn't mind working with amateurs who don't know what they're doing, as long as that ignorance works in the publisher's favor."We're not dealing with people that know what they're doing when dealing with amateurs (snip)"
If the quality of work a magazine is publishing is so-so, would it look negative to have them as a publishing credit? Or is a credit a credit no matter what?