Arguably,  the publishing process is necessarily slow because work must make it's way through a rigorous peer review system. This would probably be okay if such a system were in fact effective. However, research on the effectiveness of peer review shows that most major errors go unnoticed by reviewers  ...
title = {Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles,  submitted again},  journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences}  }" data-bib-key="Peters_1982" contenteditable="false">Peters 1982. 1982Ceci 2014.  That is not to say that peer review is not without benefits, just that it it is not stopping major errors from being published.  An alternative, which we favor, is to post/publish/preprint work without review (hint hint: authorea.com) and then coordinate review post-publication through traditional routes or through open post-publication peer review platforms (F1000Research, The Winnower).  Such a process affords seamless communication amongst scientists without unnecessary delay, eliminates editorial bias, and makes the entire process transparent.  In short, it makes the most sense.  Disagree? Leave an annotation anywhere on this document or write up a counterpoint.  We believe in open communication, making it more fluid and collaborative and we hope you'll join us.

Write us.

Write  your next paper today on Authorea. Send it wherever you'd like. #openscience