Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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…
> 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 agree…
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.