I have observed that some highly reputed researchers seem to have their papers reviewed and published within a relatively short time (2-3 months), while others, including myself, experience significantly longer waiting periods (e.g., 7+ months just for the first decision). Interestingly, the quality of work in these quickly published papers often seems comparable to those that take much longer for acceptance. Is this due to biases in the review process, prioritization of certain submissions, or differences in journal workflows? How can early-career researchers better navigate or mitigate these delays? Insights or shared experiences from the community would be greatly appreciated.
Let me be blunt about this. Ususally, journal editors respect deadlines. Some peer reviewers may not. Author-wise, there are things that shock reviewers (and I am one of them) such as making sweeping statements (I am the first one to be doing this), level of language proficiency (unintelligible English at some places), methodology (non-existent or beside the point), etc., which turns them off and makes them take time thinking about the pros and cons of the manuscript's outcome. Let's face it, in the Anglo-American higher education system, students are initiated very early in their career into publishing. One of my own MA students in the US was already a publishing author though not really in a highly-ranked, reputed journal. Thus, what we really need as a young reseracher is to have enough modesty, patience, and willingness to learn from one's mistakes and the others.
Sorry for a long message