Quick publication in a good journal VS long fight to publish in a very prestigious journal. What's more impactful at the beginning of a career? I'm the first author of an article which, according to my advisor, has some chance of being published in the prestigious IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. This however would probably entail a long peer review process and possibly waiting for months just to get rejected. A different option would be to send the article to a weaker, but still good journal and probably publish it there quickly.
Normally I'd go first for the harder option and only then try the easier one. I am however still doing my MSc and this would only be my second article, where in the first one I'm the fourth author. Therefore having a publication in a good journal would be a big improvement to my current CV and it would boost my chances of receiving a profitable scholarship next year, i.e. it could mean high short-term benefits. On the other hand, a publication in the prestigious journal could make my CV stronger in the long run and serve as a large benefit in future stages of my career that I may not be fully aware of just now.
Now, I know that put this way my question is too subjective. Let me therefore rephrase it: what is more impactful on one's scientific career, especially at the beginning (even before starting a PhD): having more publications in decent journals, or one or two but in really reputable ones?
Given that you aren't yet in a doctoral program and so have some time left in your student career, a long review process doesn't seem like a huge issue. Normally I'd give the old advice &quot;Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.&quot;
Even being under a long review by a top journal is a plus and you can point to it for most purposes.
No one can predict however and you take some chances either way. Nobody guarantees quick review or eventual success. Nobody serious or honest, anyway.
If your advisor thinks it is a top quality article, then that is probably good advice.