When thinking about the process of peer reviewing, I immediately think about evaluating someones writing that is in the same field as you. For example if I write about microbiology, someone with microbiology experience could review my paper to make sure it is accurate and credible.
Some pros of peer review are getting more opinions on your wiring, making sure it looks good to be published, and is more credible when others are reading it. Some cons that go along with peer review, are multiple ideas, or conflicting statements being made with one another. It may lead someone to second guess themselves or change something that was previously better. Peer reviews are usually done by more than one person in the same field which is good but it’s also hard to identify how useful their ideas are, or even how credible that one person may be to to give help to others. Lastly this process takes more time and the paper may not be published as fast.
