> You don't understand a thing and that was the proof of it, at least for me. The process of peers evaluating a paper takes a lot of time because it cannot be automated and is serious, especially for the better journals. Of course bouncing people (referees) is part of the process, to find the better and/or most available one.
The time of the actual reviewing does not alter either of the two other time sinks that I posted. The median post acceptance to publication time for the journal of clinical neuroscience is over three months, and other journals head over a year. [0]
> Of course you can cut corners and pre-print,
Preprints are not an alternative to publication. They are something you can do before publication. Hence the name.
> Pre-printing might be the case in fields like CS and its subfields where verification is a very quick thing, but totally unsuitable in fields such as biology or medicine
There is absolutely nothing unsuitable about releasing your work early in any field. There is a problem in assuming un-vetted work is vetted, but preprints don't make any claim to have been vetted.
"The time of the actual reviewing does not alter either of the two other time sinks that I posted. The median post acceptance to publication time for the journal of clinical neuroscience is over three months, and other journals head over a year."
Hey, you started claiming two years, no it's three months. Three months is perfectly acceptable for quality peer-reviewing. For good papers from experience authors (who know what critic to expect) this waiting might even be lower. High-quality publishing demands this.
"Preprints are not an alternative to publication. They are something you can do before publication. Hence the name."
Yeah, but the pre-print paper is almost never retracted if it has been completely revamped for the final publication, after corrections through peer-reviewing.
This makes a disservice to science cause in the meantime many scientists might have used the wrong data/methods found in the pre-printed version. That's the price of speed publishing. In some fields (biology, medicine) that price is very high.
"There is absolutely nothing unsuitable about releasing your work early in any field. There is a problem in assuming un-vetted work is vetted, but preprints don't make any claim to have been vetted."
Here we go again. I never said it was unsuitable. I, myself, sometimes attempt to pre-print. I just try to explain to you that pre-prints are not the silver bullets you imagine for high-quality spreading of scientific advances.
Yes, they spread fast and with no control, but high-quality leaves much to be desired. That's why it is probably prudent to accept as readers pre-prints only from established scientists who are known for their work ethos (by past results) and they will most probably submit their work to peer-reviewed journals as well.
Last but not least, everyone should be cautious about what he or she reads on pre-prints, especially on "slow" fields.
> Hey, you started claiming two years, no it's three months. Three months is perfectly acceptable for quality peer-reviewing. For good papers from experience authors (who know what critic to expect) this waiting might even be lower. High-quality publishing demands this.
You're not interpreting this correctly. This is not the time for review, this is once the paper has been reviewed and accepted. The journal has agreed to publish the paper, but there is still a significant delay before anyone actually gets to read it. This is why I'm saying it doesn't take two years to review the papers. It won't have done, but it still took that long between submission and the time others could actually read it.
This happens because you forget there is a que, a pipeline so to speak. Papers pile up, especially for highly desirable journals that command many eyeballs.
If yo do not want that, choose another journal. Most new ones can guarantee maximum time. All things considered, things get better here but still you get that fundamental step of peer-reviewing, which is the main difference between traditional journals and pre-print servers. In the latters you are essentially alone.
