And no, it is not ok as it works. One year to review a 10 pages paper is not ok. The process is just not working and authors should have legal rights against editors/journals.
I submitted a paper to a reputable journal and after 4 months and after 2 unanswered e-mails, a secretary responded and told me that the editor has not found available reviewers yet and I should wait. First, I do not buy it. Second, let's say that I buy it: can't you tell me at the time of submission that "hey, look, we have no people available, it will take 4 months to find someone, are you ok?" Is that too difficult? Can't you hire a person to do it? You are a (tr-?)billion dollar industry!
I submitted my work - intellectual property - to these people in good faith, I acknowledge that this has to take time, but "searching for referees" 4 months is simply unacceptable. I, as an author, should have legal rights against them. Literally, they are withholding my property (I have no right to resubmit elsewhere etc.) but there is no law protecting me.
I would like to ask: are there other people like me who believe that enough with these ridiculous 1-2 year periods to get a response on a 10 page paper and that editors/journals should be legally bounded to do their work correctly (as we authors are legally bounded to freeze our work on this paper during the submission process?) There are pages long about "Ethical responsibilities for authors" in the journal pages, but what are "editors' ethical responsibilities?"