When a researcher wants to publish their findings in a research paper, especially in a scientific journal, they will usually undergo a peer review process. First the paper goes through an editor who just checks the writing for grammar, spelling, wording. Then copies of their paper will be sent randomly to other experts in the field who will check the actual content to revise it for scientific validity, major errors, bias. I’m not sure if all of the peer reviewer have to approve it or just a majority but after the reviewers sign off on the paper then it can be published as a peer reviewed article. This boosts the credibility of the paper as instead of just one person verifying the findings, a group of experts in the field have also all verified it. It also keeps a certain standard for scientific writing. If just anyone could publish a paper it would make it harder to for a layperson to distinguish what papers are actually based on good studies. Some cons of the peer review system are that it could potentially waste more time delaying the publication of a paper and the reviewers could be biased against the ideas or the publisher. Many valid findings in the past may not have been accepted by the scientific community and there is still discrimination against certain groups.
