Journals are highly variable, at least in physics. I've experienced everything from acceptance after a week and publication within the month to pure hell that dragged on for over 2 years. The average is a few months and certainly not over a year! You'd better believe physics moves fast too. Preprints frequently gather dozens of citations before a journal editor even bestirs him or herself to send the submitted article out to referees! ArXiv is what everyone reads daily for the latest stuff, but always with caution. There's crazy crank stuff and crap in there too unfortunately.
Preprints are a great way to distribute results quickly without waiting for the gears of the peer-review process to complete their grinding or for the right conference to come up. However, when you get good referees the peer-review process can really put your work through the acid-test. We frequently get comments back that prompt us to do great work (along with many that just piss us off with busy work...). When it functions properly, the peer-review process bursts your institution's local bubble of thought-patterns and reminds you of how other experts in the field might think about the same problem. Occasionally it catches big mistakes or spots huge redundancies.
China is starting to publish a lot, but the standards aren't there yet. Some of their institutions do fantastic work while others really need peer-review to keep them honest. There are, of course, dishonest individuals pretty much everywhere who will take advantage of any flaws in the system. How do disciplines that eschew peer-review deal with this? When viewing preprints, I unfortunately place far too much importance on authors I know and trust. Sources matter when you can't really trust every article you read. Without peer-reviewed journals, how do you avoid potentially ignoring brilliant research by people unknown to you?
Preprints are a great way to distribute results quickly without waiting for the gears of the peer-review process to complete their grinding or for the right conference to come up. However, when you get good referees the peer-review process can really put your work through the acid-test. We frequently get comments back that prompt us to do great work (along with many that just piss us off with busy work...). When it functions properly, the peer-review process bursts your institution's local bubble of thought-patterns and reminds you of how other experts in the field might think about the same problem. Occasionally it catches big mistakes or spots huge redundancies.
China is starting to publish a lot, but the standards aren't there yet. Some of their institutions do fantastic work while others really need peer-review to keep them honest. There are, of course, dishonest individuals pretty much everywhere who will take advantage of any flaws in the system. How do disciplines that eschew peer-review deal with this? When viewing preprints, I unfortunately place far too much importance on authors I know and trust. Sources matter when you can't really trust every article you read. Without peer-reviewed journals, how do you avoid potentially ignoring brilliant research by people unknown to you?