This sounds like some kind of comment about divisibility of the work to publish something. I don't get it though.
After the bulk of the paper is written, I can easily proofread, typeset, etc everything myself in less than a week. Now get someone else to double check that. Lets say that is another week.
After that the only thing is to get someone worthwhile to spend some time on your paper and point out anything confusing or erroneous. Granted, this could take a month or so of study. However, I never really saw that happen in practice. In reality you would be lucky to get people to glance over it one evening.
In my experience a significant fraction of the time it takes to publish a paper is spent waiting for the journal. During that time you can do other useful research. The long delay between submitting, getting through the reviewers and the actual publication is one of the reasons why for example in CS a lot of the interesting stuff happens in conference publications with fast turnarounds and the journal versions of the same paper appear a year or two later.
