I would be more comfortable if I could read a peer review publication before my appointment.
Me too. I am not really happy with all this dragging on of the peer review. The size of the dataset should not be a reason not to publish the paper unless they are still analyzing the dataset itself. You publish a paper, not the data. You may need to make part of the data available to referees during the peer review, but that's it. Except the peer review has not even started, so why wait to submit? Is the paper finished or not? If it is finished put a preprint online, as is done in maths/physics (arXiv.org), biology (biorXiv), medicine (PubMed Central), social sciences (SSRN.com) etc. Then you may amend it later for publication but at least the research is out and people can read and check it even before the formal peer review is done. This would be the least they could do before charging 2500 EUR to clients.
All this dragging is bad, suppose a referee or an informed reader finds an important problem they have not thought about in the preprint, why should all the clients that bought the product earlier be exposed to that, like guinea pigs? The correct sequence should be
1) Post a preprint and allow for some preliminary feedback from the community.
2) Submit the paper to a journal with a formal peer review process
3) Get the referee reports and implement any recommendations they make
4) Publish the paper
I feel commercialization of something related to medical treatments should be done at the earliest after step 1, much better if after step 3, but anyway not before step 1. True, nobody is forcing us to buy the product but given the desperation of some tinnitus sufferers it would be more honest to wait for 3, to make sure something fully sound is being sold.
Am I being too demanding? I understand proprietary information, IP and all that, but if the intention is to publish anyway, why all this delay?