Peer review is the process of revision of someone else’s work. When this is done, it is most likely that the reviewer is doing similar work to you or has expertise in the subject. This is the best scenario since it will lead to revision on not only factual content, but the conclusion made from it. Other reviewers can see other points of view and mistakes often overlooked by the author. The reviewers can add the ‘audience’ perspective and reflect on whether the message was successfully understood or not. The credibility of the results increases because someone else might be verifying the own conclusions with their arguments and experiences. In the professional field, others might replicate your work to verify the same quantity of results (increasing credibility). However, cons of a peer review occur when there is a disbalance in who is evaluating your work. The feedback might be skewed if its someone who is not the intended audience. They might be objective in their feedback which influences the author’s final work. Peer reviews could also be damaging if they lead away from the authors purpose when the author meant to have some objectivity. Another pro may come from these varying views however by making the author more visible to counterarguments.
