Recommended reading for the kind of person who scrutinizes the long version of the Hugo Award voting tally
Honors for editors and publishers are usually indirect, via nominations for best magazine, best publisher, or best anthology. Furthermore, some awards designate nominees in best magazine and publisher categories, and some (like the Locus Poll) don't, so the figures here would not correspond to nomination counts for magazines and publishers themselves. (The Hugos, on the other hand, nominate editors directly with no specific magazine or publisher affiliation designated.) There was one professional prize that explicitly honors lifetime achievement in editing and publishing, the Milford Award, though it hasn't been awarded since 1997; its recipients are indicated in the first column.
Following columns indicate results for editing or publishing only for Hugo Awards, World Fantasy Awards, Bram Stoker Awards, Locus Poll results, and all other awards compiled in this Index, followed by Grand Totals for editing and publishing, and Grand Totals in all categories.
It's a tricky, quirky read. Does it give a real index of the relative importance of editors? Given that I rank ahead of, say, Jim Baen, I would say—ah—no. It's biased against editors from long ago, biased in forvor of hot new movers and shakers, it gives too much weight to the LOCUS Award (retrospecively redefining poll winners as award winners), and fiction awards get lumped in with editing awards in the final tally. Plus there are some people who make great contributions to editing, such as John Douglas, without ever getting nominated for anything.
But for those interested in SF stats, it's worth at least a half an hour of scrutiny.
Meanwhile, judging from our junk mail, being an editor has just become fashionable. (Although the kind of of editing intended by the ad seems to involve one's behind.)