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 Schroter 2008Godlee 1998Baxt 1998Smith 2010.  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 work without review (hint hint: authorea.com) and then coordinate review post-publication through traditional routes or through open post-publication peer review (F1000Research, The Winnower).