It stayed on Awaiting Recommendation for about 2 weeks before I received the decision. I think that it will vary though depending on how busy the editor is.

Sadly, mine was rejected this time. But I still feel thrilled that it was reviewed (and not rejected outright - since it was a very ambitious choice of journal). Also, I think the critical feedback that one of the reviewers gave is going to be pretty helpful to me (the other two reviewers seemed to be giving the thumbs up more or less - which is interesting). Thankfully, I didn't have to wait too long - submitted at end of Nov.

Congrats on your acceptance, and may they hurry up and get it in print!

I always took a different view on impact factors to most. My aim was to get published with the minimum fuss by picking a reasonable impact factor journal rather than the highest. It wasnt a lack of ambition on my part, simply a desire not to spend months trying to get something published when I prefer to get on with my research.

Thanks for sharing. I did that for my first paper, but this time around I decided to aim higher. I wanted to get (whether or not it was accepted) really critical feedback - to get me in the right frame of mind for my viva. I don't have much supervision - they comment on drafts but tend to focus on spelling mistakes and things, instead of giving substantive criticism and feedback. So some of what these reviewers have said is like gold dust to me (some of it I don't agree with - and that is fine too). Next time around though, I may aim a little lower (but still good and reasonable). I'm just learning and trying new things.

The quality of the feedback won't necessarily be dependent on the journal's impact factor. What bothered me about higher impact journals was the length of time needed to publish and the attitude of the reviewers. I found feedback to be unnecessarily snobbish with higher impact journals. Altogether it was a hassle I could do without.

Having said that, I do understand that academia is absolutely obsessed with such things so I guess if you really want to enter that profession you need to think about that. For me, I was always interested in generating good science which was meaningful to me, getting it published and moving onto the next piece of research. Everything else was simply froth including presenting at conference and impact factor chasing. Don't even get me started on poster presentations :-D I don't think I am cut out to be an academic which is why I bailed post PhD. For a start I would never deliberately target final year undergrads in an attempt to protect my pension.

I think it can play a role. The particular journal I submitted too was one of very good quality - based on what I get from reading the papers more than an impact factor alone. Basically, I wanted to get feedback from the likes of those who publish in it (and reviewers often tend to be those who publish similar work in a particular journal) and its editor, as I figured their feedback would be helpful in bringing my work to a higher level. In terms of hassle and snobbery - thankfully, there wasn't any of that on this occasion.

Are you planning to resubmit to the same journal or are you looking to publish elsewhere now?
Good luck either way. Is this your first publication?

I am planning to submit elsewhere, but am not quite sure where yet. It will be (hopefully) my 2nd publication. My 1st paper (based on Masters work) was published last year. Thanks - fingers crossed!

Thanks J_W! Hope all's going well.