Peer review of a scientific journal is necessary and also pretty elaborate. The reason for peer reviews is it gives the manuscript several pairs of fresh eyes–eyes that understand the topic– and gives notes to the authors to make the manuscript better. The author begins by sending in their work, then the editor, if accepted, sends out the manuscript to several peer reviewers. The peer reviewers do know who the author is, but the author usually does not know who the reviewers are. This could potentially lead to some biases perhaps due to competition within that scientific field, or perhaps the reviewers find the particular subject boring… reviewers seem to have a pretty strong hand in what happens to the manuscript, so it is an intense process that may lead to some credibility issues if there are personal biases. The reviewers chosen are considered people in the field related to the work, and have usually been published themselves… therefore, they understand the tedious process.
Once the reviewers add in their revisions, it is sent back to the editor to accept the manuscript or decline it. If accepted, the manuscript gets sent back to the authors once they fix the things the reviewers noted, they send it back in and the review process is replicated until the paper deems fit.
Although it is a tedious process, and perhaps there is room for biases, it is a necessary process in order to make research/the manuscript the most understandable, and the most relatable in that scientific field due to the experts’ edits and advising.
