Peer reviewed journal or anthology?

[OctaviaButlerfan]

I've heard that peer reviewed journals are the best option for publishing. I've also heard conflicting information about publishing: one, that it is best to diversify, and two, that it is best to try to become published in forums in which others who specialize in similar interests will notice your work. That said, how does a specialized anthology edited by an academic who specializes in interests similar to yours hold up to a peer reviewed journal?

[fuzzylogician]

It depends on the field and particular anthology and journal you are comparing (e.g., in CS the most prestigious publication venue is conference proceedings, not journals). Generally, anything that is peer-reviewed is better than a non-peer-reviewed venue. In my field, journals are normally considered better than edited volumes (with caveats for particular journals and particular books edited by particular scholars). However, if the anthology is widely circulated in your subfield and is well regarded, it may be a better choice compared to a journal that will yield less exposure for your work. This is really something you should consult with your advisor about, because they will know the specifics about the publication venues in your (sub)field and how well your paper fits with particular venues that your work might be suited for. Not knowing your work or the venues you are considering, I think it'll be hard for anyone here to give very specific advice in this case.