The original article can be found at Fireside Fiction Company.
I do wonder if this has less to do with systemic racism and more to do with money and the generalized fear of change people experience.
Editors of short story magazines are human, presumably, and as such these editors (in general) have an ingrained sense of right and wrong in regards to the stories that should appear in their magazines. It is this very ethos, that governs story choices, that editors are chosen and employed; for the pieces they pick, presumably, keep the eyeballs coming back to their magazine.
Now, while this may appear to be a culturing of anti-POC dispositions amongst the SFF editors of the world; in reality the likely driver behind this maintaining of the status quo is…money.
Every company in the world has a desire to make money, if for different reasons. For-profits companies, your Apples and Walmarts, want to make money simply so they can make more money. Non-profit organizations (legitimate ones) want to make money as well, if only so they can continue offering the services they provide; for if they made no money they couldn’t operate. SFF magazines are no different; they have to make money. At the very least, so they can keep their website running; and in a better world so they can pay authors and a full-time staff of employees.
So as money the ultimate guiding hand, coupled with peoples fear of change, choosing the same type of story, month after month, for publication becomes the norm. Yes, many magazines will publish stories that are radically different from what they normally publish, but that is done only once or twice a year, normally in a planned featurette. And those magazines are not in the majority, making once or twice a year to read a change in storytelling (from a minority of publications) woefully inadequate. So, it is wonderful, studies like these get done. They put the onus on the editors to go outside their comfort zone of stories and not just for a planned featurette, removing the argument that readers just don’t to read something different.
And why should the task of giving readers a wide variety in stories not fall onto the shoulders of editors? Why should these short story publishers not hire a group of editors with wildly different views on what makes a great story?
Truth be told every SFF magazine should have their editors make a quarter of published stories be from writers with strong technical writing in a style of prose that doesn’t mesh finely with every other story picked. Now this is not an affirmative action type call to SFF publishing; rather it would present to readers a highly varying degree of writing styles that, while the editor may not like the style of, the audience will (at least with some of the stories). Then since the editor stuck to only strong writing, it’s a win-win; high standards are upheld, stories available to read begin to spread away from a nexus of indistinguishability, the possibility of more incoming money presents itself, and changing to new styles of prose feels less daunting.