If backlogs in philosophy journals are the problem, are moratoria the solution?

Hypatia, a leading journal in feminist philosophy, has decided to place a moratorium on new submissions until July 2013. There have been moratoria in other journals, for instance in Noûs and PPR, but these are perhaps a bit less problematic, as they are general philosophy journals, and so you could find an alternative home for your paper in epistemology, metaphysics, philsophy of language etc. if there is a moratorium in those journals. By contrast, while Hypatia is not the only venue for feminist philosophy, it is the most prominent one, and it still seems less straightforward to publish feminist philosophy in general philosophy journals (I see no principled reason against this, but it still remains rare). 

Moratoria on new submissions are often motivated by long back logs in the journal's publication, and increases on editors and referees, all caused by an increase in submissions. For Hypatia, the editors attribute the steep rise in submissions to an increased interest in feminist philosophy. For Noûs and PPR, the reason for increased submissions might be that these journals have relatively decent turnaround times in terms of refereeing, combined with an excellent reputation, which leads young researchers to seek these venues, rather than, say Mind, which has a very long average review time (Cullison's journal surveys provide comparative data). It seems to me (although I don't immediately find quantitative data to back this up) that increased submissions by graduate students and other junior philosophers contribute to the problem. 

While the decision of Hypatia's editors is understandable, I think that moratoria, in the long run, are not a good solution. They disadvantage people who are untenured, and require good publications on their CV for jobs or their tenure evaluations. Often they have to get such papers in a relatively tight schedule. If the primary venues for their work happen to have a moratorium, this would be an unacceptable bad luck factor. So what are the alternatives?

• More journals: There is obviously room for more peer-reviewed journals. Of course, there is pressure to publish in established journals with high prestige (like Hypatia), but newcomers like Philosophers' Imprint show that it is possible to establish new high-quality journals with good reputation in a relatively short span of time. The fact that Noûs and PPR get swamped with submissions indicates there is surely room for another good philosophy journal. Why could the APA (like many other philosophical societies, such as PSA) not have its own journal? Which, hopefully, could publish also articles in, say, feminist philosophy or philosophy of race? 
• Increase publication frequency of existing journals: This seems like a dangerous strategy, but it could be considered. There are good philosophy journals with a high publication rate, e.g., Philosophical Studies had 15 issues in 2011. Why do most philosophy journals stick to a quarterly rate, given that acceptance rates are so low? Would it be a decrease of quality if, say a journal with a 10% acceptance rate moved from 4 to 6 issues a year? 
• Rethink how to evaluate young scholars about their publication in refereed journals: I think refereed papers are an excellent tool to evaluate young and also established scholars, especially if they appear in papers with a double or triple anonymous procedure. Papers are less susceptible to incrowdism and other forms of networking, like e.g., publishing in edited volumes or glowing letters of reference. But, for instance, in Belgium and the Netherlands where the science model is adopted for evaluation of projects and scholars, there is now a high pressure on grad students not only to publish in refereed journals, but also to publish *a lot*. I know people who just got their PhD and who have 10 or more refereed journal papers. Typically, these scholars start submitting their papers to (what often turn out to be unrealistically) high ranking journals, e.g., a second-year grad student in philosophy of science would start out with BJPS, then submits the rejected paper to Philosophy of Science, then to Biology & Philosophy, and so further on until it's accepted. So I think Europeans (this seems less a problem in America) need to rethink this science-based model of evaluating scholars, especially given that acceptance rates in philosophy journals are tiny. 
• Explore other refereed venues: In computer science and cognitive science, refereed published proceedings of conferences are important on the CV. Again, large conferences like APA which require papers in advance could publish full papers as part of conference proceedings. For example, the Cognitive Science Society has a double-anonymous peer review system that looks over every submission to their conference (4000-word papers), provides comments, and publishes the revised papers in their annual electronic proceedings. It makes the papers accessible, and publishing in this venue is valued on the CV.  
• Rethink the role of relative prestige in journals: I've talked this over a lot with people from outside of philsosophy: it seems that in philosophy, more so than in other disciplines, there is a tendency to single out what are the journals to publish in. Of course, every discipline has its flagship journals, but to give some perspective, I don't know any other discipline where publishing in an international refereed journal would actually harm your reputation! See especially comment 38 in this thread. While reputation may be a good indicator of paper quality, it seems nevertheless important to look at the actual writing itself (e.g., the writing sample). 

There are probably other strategies that would, in the long run, be good alternatives to imposing temporary moratoria.