In doing a scientific peer-review, it begins like any other peer-review of a paper. You have to thoroughly read and understand what is being presented to you, noting the transitions and language that is used compared to the audience at hand. After that, it differs from the normal review. Using scientific review persons are aimed at looking into the specific topic used and whether or not that topic was successfully established throughout the whole writing. You also look at whether or not the opposing topic is talked about and supported by evidence. It is important to not be completely biased with the paper that is being written but rather is able to acknowledge the counter-argument and use that to build a stronger case for yours.
With scientific writing, it is very important that the sources are appropriate for the topic at hand. You want to have sources that are peer reviewed and cited properly within and at the end of the paper. It is also a better argument provided if the sources vary in the type of articles (clinical trials, primary research, reviews) so that your discussion is widely supported.
Here are some pros and cons as to the influences of peer-review
Pros:
- Able to adjust and focus work
- Able to obtain a second opinion of your topic and the relevance of your sources
- You can miss the errors within your work
- Able to get new ideas concerning a specific topic of choice
Cons:
- Bias in the response given
- Incorrect information that can lead a person to adjust their paper and make it worse
- Unable to add any relevant information to adjust the paper
Even with the risk of the cons related to peer-reviews, I think that is it really important that people have their papers reviewed. I think that it overall adds to the detail and accuracy of their work.
