I have an interview next week for a (temporary teaching) job in a Philosophy Department, which is itself very welcome - although Oxford's political theory contingent are funded by the AHRC rather than ESRC, it seems we sometimes have trouble getting taken seriously as philosophers.
Anyway, I'm still getting to grips with journal hierarchies in both political science and philosophy, not to mention trying to deal with the added complexity of a potential career spanning the two. This thread over at the Leiter Report was very helpful - summarising, Mind and Phil Review seem quite bad places to send stuff (in terms of turnaround times and feedback), while Analysis is widely considered a very good model (even if most decisions are made by an editor without referees or reports), and Ratio, Philosophy and Journal of Moral Philosophy are among those getting honorable mentions. (What little comment there is on Ethics and P&PA isn't particularly positive)
After a while of good and bad anecdotes, the thread starts to degenerate into analysis of the problem and potential solutions - e.g. Do we have too many grad students sending mediocre papers to over-worked reviewers? Should we abolish peer review or charge authors a small sum, to either pay referees or at least discourage frivilous submissions? The idea of boycotting bad journals also came up at Pea Soup, though nothing there isn't on Leiter.
It's too long for me to find the comment again, but one suggested that a potential problem was students sending work off for 'free feedback' rather than bothering their over-worked supervisors. I wonder if one solution might be to adopt the multi-author approach of science? If my supervisor (or other senior academics I know) basically got co-authorship out of detailed comments on my paper, I wonder if they'd be more willing to offer such help? (And would it be worth the cost for a student like me?)
Also, on the subject, this wiki offers some statistical evidence of review speeds and acceptance rates in philosophy journals. Many are still unaccounted for and of those that are numbers are surely not representative, but it's easy to see why Analysis is rated so highly.