It all depend on the reviewer, usually peer review journals gave a flexible time of three months for the reviewer to review the manuscript.

Thanks Theophilus. But, empirically the review process speed of each journal could be different regarding editor-in-chief approach. for example I know that the desk accept/reject of Applied energy is very fast (less than one week), while others maybe longer.

I have a problem with the attitude that the review process has to be fast. It is in fact ridiculous to want to have a very quick turn-around, as it correlates very strongly with referees doing pretty much nothing, or doing a sloppy refereeing. Be aware that - from my experience - if the reviewing is forced to be quick, then it will most likely lead to a *reject* decision. I would NOT want to ever send a paper to a journal that promises to deliver a verdict within three weeks or something like that; it is a clear indication that they are not serious at all.

If you want to publish in a good journal, you better damn well have the patience. :-)

The following website provide community based analysis of the review duration and other interesting indicators of many journals.

https://scirev.org/

So far a rather useless site, as many fields and their better journals are not represented.

Thank you Moahmed EL-Shimy for your reply.

Thank you @Micheal Patriksson too for declaring your opinion. But it was a hyperbolic answer. I did not mean that I want a poor refereeing at all. Without any exaggeration, you could simply choose between two editor in chiefs of which, one get the feedback of desk rejection/acceptance in two weeks while the other one comes back to you after 4 months. I think 4 months to check the scope matching and other initial features of a paper is a little bit long!!! If I want to interpret these feedback according to your correlation you said, then I must send my paper to the second one, because it takes 8 times longer and it should be far much better than the first one regarding its quality. While according to the quality criteria they are the same.

This example could be generalized to the review process too. Some editors and referees are more committed to getting feedback.

Generally, you are right, but not as that much you interpret the fastness of a journal as its low quality. I think it is a trade-off problem between review speed and journal and its referees' quality.

I do wanna publish in high quality journals such as three mentioned journals, But rationally, I want to choose the one which has a more efficient and faster review process management.

Indeed, the editorial board should decide within three weeks, or so, whether a manuscript should be rejected immediately, or be sent to referees.

Dear Michael,

I guess it is fair enough to not judge the value of the scirev based on a spot overview. The website is a new one, and presents data based on the inputs of various communities. Therefore, encouraging and supporting its objectives would be good;right?

Dear Mohamed EL-Shimy,

Thanks for taking part in this discussion and getting useful hints.

Remember that correlation and causality are rather different things,. :-) I would not say that a journal's editorial system correlates very strongly with their turn-around time, IF we exclude those low-quality journals that promise a verdict within a week. I would never submit something to such a journal.

Dear Professor Michael Patriksson,

Thank you for following up the discussion. I got your point.

Regards.