The process of peer reviewing is made to ensure that the information contained in an article is accurate and well put together. It is important for different journals to have peer reviewers to determine if the study was done in a manner that makes it work for the journal and that it is well put together in general to be able to uphold the study findings. The process of a peer reviews follows this general setup: Article is Submitted to a Journal–> it can then be accepted or rejected for possible publication–> once accepted for publication a group of reviewers (peer reviewers) will review the paper and suggest changes or tell the editor of the journal to publish–> if the reviewers suggest the authors to make changes the author can then change it and send it back to the reviewers–> it will then be outright rejected or accepted for publication in the journal. It is also important to note that the reviewers know who the authors are but the authors do not know who the reviewers are-hence a single-blind process is formed.
I think it is also important to note who the reviewers are. Different journals will have reviewers who are in the field of study of the journal that are able to review the article for accuracy and validity. This also means that they review the article to make sure that it would be a correct fit for their journal. For example you would not want an article about allergies in a neuroscience journal unless it is specifically tied into the neuroscience behind allergies (if there is any).
The pros to the peer-reviewing process include: establishes validity of the study, increases the readability and writing, and can improve the writing of the paper to make it a better paper. This process is not without its limitations though and some of the cons include: it is a time consuming process, it may take out viable studies that should be published they just do not seem like they are, and I think that this could also lead to biases in different people that makes the reviews more harsh then they could be leading to works not being published that should be.
I think that peer reviewing enhances the validity of studies and makes it so that articles being published are real works and not unfounded works that had no business being published but I think it can have issues as well depending on the scope of reviewing and the reviewers themselves. Peer Reviewing boils down to people in the same type of work as you looking over articles and making sure that the articles are good enough for publication.
CATEGORIES: Uncategorized