I'm currently revising a paper with a revise & resubmit decision, having good hopes it will be accepted eventually in this journal. It is a specialist journal, my favorite kind of journal to submit work to - reasonable waiting times, timely decisions, competent referees who take the time to read your work. Many of my papers in specialist journals get in at their first submission, and even when they're rejected, the comments are often useful to improve the paper.
What a difference with general journals - a much more haphazard process, where papers are away for at least 6 months, or in the more timely ones, 3 months but without any comments by editors or referees (I submitted once to Nous and once to Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, and in each case I received a rejection after 3 months and no comments, with a note saying they can't comment on some individual papers to keep up their fast decision process). Not all my experiences with general philosophy journals have been negative. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Philosophical Studies and dialectica have been wonderful (accepted papers), and I found the process at Philosophical Quarterly very good too, even though they rejected both papers I sent there. But still, my general experience is that specialist journals give better review times, more competent referees, and a higher probability of acceptance. So I prefer to submit to specialist journals.
Here's my publication strategy: I submit most of my papers to specialist journals, unless I believe the paper might stand a change in a general journal. In my experience, "general" journals are not truly general - they publish papers in several areas of philosophy, but it's nearly always a particular kind of philosophy within those fields. Most work in say, aesthetics or philosophy of cognitive science, would not have a chance of getting published there.
When I feel a paper would fit in a general philosophy journal, I buy a "lottery ticket", as I've come to think of this, following Neil Levy's story about someone who prays to God to win the lottery, and when that doesn't happen, God tells him to buy a *** lottery ticket first. I didn't buy many lottery tickets, but fortunately it is not (yet?) essential to have lots of papers in general philosophy journals. I've avoided journals with a reputation of very long review times and haphazard review processes (most journals in the top 5); it is just not worth my time. I'll call my strategy occasional lottery ticket strategy.
I know people who have other strategies. One common publication strategy I've observed is what I'll call the waterfall strategy - always aim for a top journal first, then try one or more other general journals, then a specialist journal. For instance, suppose you have a paper in the philosophy of biology, with that strategy, you start out with a paper in Journal of Philosophy (which does seem to have a fair amount of philosophy of biology work), then after rejection you send it to say, Phil Studies, if that doesn't work, perhaps Phil Quarterly, and only you go to specialist journals, starting with more general ones, such as British Journal for the Philosophy of Science and only later Biology & Philosophy. Upside of the waterfall strategy is that it maximizes your chances of getting a paper published in a top general journal since you buy lots of lottery tickets. But the downside is that this is an incredibly frustrating, dispiriting strategy (unless you are a research superstar) given the very low acceptance rates in these journals. Also, it doesn't guarantee you'll get a paper in a top journal, especially if one's work is not in line with recent topics of interest in such journals.
I haven't yet tried any of the new(er) open access journals like Philosopher's Imprint or Ergo, and I didn't try the Journal of the APA (not open access) either. But it's on my to-do list, and I'm curious what people's experiences are in terms of timeliness, receiving (useful) referee comments, editorial decisions and so on.
Regardless of where people aim for, it seems many of us employ what I've seen called (but I forgot by whom) a bingo strategy for publishing, i.e., all things being equal, they submit to a journal they do not have a paper in yet. I'd be very interested to hear about other people's publication strategies!