Peer reviewing is a crucial step that allows scientific articles to have credibility, and it gives the reader comfortability that what they are reading is factual. In terms of what peer reviewing does for the researcher/writer is that it allows for them to have feedback on where their information may not be understandable to their audience. It gives the writer a new perspective on how their audience may be receiving their work. The process of peer reviewing should be done by multiple highly accredited individuals that have more experience in the field than that of the writer.
The pros of peer reviewing is the feedback that the writer receives prior to releasing their work. As mentioned above, peer reviewing allows for a new perspective of the paper, thus allowing for mistakes to me caught that may have been brushed over by the writer. Overall, it keeps the writer accountable for their information and quality of their article.
The cons of peer reviewing is that it adds to the process of publication. In addition to this, a peer reviewer must be an expert within the field that the article based on, and some fields may not have many individuals available for reviewing.