Though the previous answers are relevant "by themselves", I do not really think they address the problem raised in the original question... Many journals exist and some have a quicker publishing process than others. It regularly happens for example that you can get an answer from reviewers for the journal Nature in less than a month after submission, while for others it takes 6 to 8 months or even longer.

What I personally find strange is the fact that it can take 6 months for a person to review an article, it certainly does not take that much time for me to assess the scientific contribution of an article and I am just an average scientist (and not the fastest by far). I actually doubt that anyone can stay up to date in his own field by taking so much time to read and understand a scientific paper...

Back to the question of the OP: I doubt that people will give you straight public answers for that, experience will give you hints about the efficiency of editors of the different journals in your field. An important factor is the good will of the reviewers and this is a pretty random factor (probably mitigated by the competence of the editor in choosing such reviewers and pushing them but I believe this is a pretty difficult job all in all).

Honestly, I find such questions asking about how to get paper published rapidly - even in good journals - quite fantastical because I do not believe it is possible. How can it be indeed? While it takes time for authors to structure a simple paper regardless of length and subject areas, it also takes time for editors and reviewers to review your paper; that's why the overall process is just concomitant. Anyway, wishing you good luck!

I second the previous speaker's remarks. There is no quick route to becoming good at anything, really; you need to think very hard what you want to write about, in a way that you actually present something NEW and nicely written, such that someone other than you and the reviewers will read it. It should also be a paper on a timely subject in your field, and in order to know what is timely you need to study the already existing journal papers in the field. Have you heard of the 10,000 hour rule? It basically says that almost whatever you want to do well, you need that many hours to do it perfectly. A tennis player needs that amount of practice, as well as a piano player, or a mathematician. Again: there is no shortcut!

Dear @Michael Patriksson, you made an excellent comment!

Regards,

Hulya

Though the previous answers are relevant "by themselves", I do not really think they address the problem raised in the original question... Many journals exist and some have a quicker publishing process than others. It regularly happens for example that you can get an answer from reviewers for the journal Nature in less than a month after submission, while for others it takes 6 to 8 months or even longer.

What I personally find strange is the fact that it can take 6 months for a person to review an article, it certainly does not take that much time for me to assess the scientific contribution of an article and I am just an average scientist (and not the fastest by far). I actually doubt that anyone can stay up to date in his own field by taking so much time to read and understand a scientific paper...

Back to the question of the OP: I doubt that people will give you straight public answers for that, experience will give you hints about the efficiency of editors of the different journals in your field. An important factor is the good will of the reviewers and this is a pretty random factor (probably mitigated by the competence of the editor in choosing such reviewers and pushing them but I believe this is a pretty difficult job all in all).

With the followings links, you can find the appropriate journals with desirable decision time for your paper in Elsevier and Springer publishers:

Elsevier :

https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/

Springer :

https://journalsuggester.springer.com/