Journal impact factor (JIF) and journal ranking play essential roles in scholarly publishing and research assessment, but the overuse of these metrics has recently drawn criticism. One topic of major debate is that certain objective measurable and controlled variables, including publication delay, journal size and article size, could impact JIF; in addition, journal identity is increasingly becoming a matter of concern. In this study, we focus mainly on the links between publication delays, number of published articles per year, average paper length and JIF and explore the mechanisms of journal ranking levels according to these variables. After a thorough survey of 53 forestry journals, we find that (1) compared to other fields, forestry research has a humble publishing culture with a lower JIF, smaller journal size, longer articles and rather substantial time to accept and publish the original articles in their final form. (2) More published articles per year could help a forestry journal rank in the top 50%. In addition, for non open access journals, a shorter period between manuscript acceptance and the final published version, a longer time between online available and final publication, and more time from articles receiving to online posting positively impact journal ranking; while for open access journals, longer paper length and faster article acceptance has a positive influence on ranking. (3) There is statistical evidence that publication practice preferences exist between different ranking levels. This research provides an objective view for rethinking the overdependence on JIF and journal ranking in research assessment.