The peer review and selection of scientific articles are among the central contributions of journals to scientific communication, in addition to publication and knowledge dissemination. The processes of quality assurance are also linked to downstream mechanisms of evaluation, since journals often serve as indicators for the evaluation of scientific performance. Quality assurance processes are therefore of central importance in the science system in several respects. The digital transformation enabled a massive increase in efficiency and acceleration of publication processes, opening up new growth options in the scientific journal market. In addition, a financing model was established for Open Access (OA) articles in the form of Article Processing Charges, which provide very direct financial incentives for increasing sales. In recent years, publishers who promise researchers rapid publication as a monetary benefit have thus been able to massively increase their publication volume. The pressure of "publish or perish" in the scientific system encourages this development of the market. But what impact do these acceleration and growth rates have on the function of scientific publishing? Are they achieved through efficiency gains alone, or does the development have broader implications for peer review processes? What characterizes an exemplary review process and how can possible conflicts of objectives be identified? As part of the EQUAP2 project, more than 3,200 scientists from 25 German and Swiss universities and research institutions were interviewed by means of a web survey about their expectations of the review process and their publisher-specific experiences. The responses were stratified by discipline and the role of the researcher in the publication process (editor, reviewer or author) in order to identify possible contradictions between the formulated expectations and experiences. In addition, two factorial survey designs were implemented in the survey to assess best practices of peer review and decision-making processes at journals. The survey shows that expectations of the peer review process are very homogeneous across disciplines, but vary significantly depending on the role of the researcher in the publication process. The responses indicate potential conflicts of interest as well as debatable publishing practices that should be considered by scientific institutions, especially in publication funding decisions.