I’ve done a complete 180-turn on this.
A few years ago, when I first started submitting my fiction for publication, most magazines wanted snail-mail submissions, and only a handful allowed e-mail submissions. The thinking was (I guess) that editors were not to be expected to sit in front of a computer reading unsolicited submissions on the screen, and they certainly weren’t going to use paper and ink to print them.
But now, a few years later, that situation seems to have reversed itself. Fewer and farther between are the magazines that still insist on receiving paper in the mail. More and more magazines are asking exclusively for electronic submissions. There is as of yet no uniformity to the process. Every publication is different: some will specify that they want an .rtf attachment, or the story pasted into the body of an e-mail, or else they have a special form on their website. But electronic submission seems to be the rule, and snail-mail the exception.
There’s a parallel situation with reading.
I used to feel that it would be better to be published on paper. But I have to admit that as a reader, I’ve read many more stories online than I’ve ever read in actual paper publications. I’m guessing (just guessing) that this is the same for other readers, too. Then, too, paper magazines are so fleeting – in print, out of print, poof, gone – whereas online publications will frequently keep works stored in easy-to-access archives for years.
So my personal unscientific conclusion: authors publishing online get more exposure.
Hmm. Maybe. I think that both can work, depending on how you market and who you go to for connections (not to mention things like cover art, ect.). Some people are E-readers, some people (like myself) really just feel better with the tactile experience of a printed book.
If I could pick, I think I’d like both.