Timeline of "Quick opinions" in math journal refereeing Some years ago a fair number of mathematics journals started to ask for one or more &quot;quick opinions&quot; by experts on a received manuscript before sending it out for peer-review (with the obvious goal of avoiding the hassle of peer-review for papers that clearly don't make the cut). In your experience, how long does it take on average to receive a quick opinion? Or, phrased differently, how long after submission can you usually deduce that your manuscript has survived quick opinions and is sent out for peer-review? This question is only within the scope of mathematics.
I've been asked for &quot;quick opinions&quot; from a variety of good-to-best journals, and I try to meet the obvious goal of &quot;quick...&quot;, if nothing else.
In some cases, I've easily seen the need for various sorts of revision, and immediately recommended that, with a promise that I'd look at it again later when it was more readable.
In some cases, I do also easily confess that, while I myself may not see the point or interest of a project, perhaps there is one... and, if nothing else, the author(s) perhaps should revise to make that clearer (if possible).
Anyway, usually I succeed in giving &quot;quick responses&quot; in a week or less, as one data point.