Actually, having served as both writer and editor, I can sympathize with editors who prefer to use RELIABLE writers for many articles, when some other writer who supposedly specializes in another area might do a better job. You (the editorial "you") might or might not get a better article.
I remember seeing an article in OUTDOOR LIFE many years ago about catching Rocky Mountain whitefish in the winter. It was done by a long-time staff writer, who did an OK job, and a good+ job on the photos. But I had proposed such an article a few months before to the same magazine, and knew I could do better. So I was a little peeved.
Many years later I realized that I could have done the writing better, but not the photos, and the magazine was trying to keep its regular writers busy.
That is how you become a regular writer for magazines: You provide at least "B" papers all the time, and "A" papers as often as possible. Eventually, if you do this long enough, ALL your articles are accepted.
When I was an editor, like Ken, I did like to give go-aheads to people for things outside their "normal." Often an extraordinary article resulted--and sometimes not.
