I would describe the peer review process as a long process to someone who does not normally read scientific articles. After the research has been conducted and written out the paper will then go to a board of reviews that will determine if they find the information collected in the paper as useful or not and they will determine if it is or is not credible. I would say that a pro to this process is that it helps assure that the information being displayed to the public is relevant and credible (for the most part) and is something that can be further looked into to help us with advancements whether it is technological or medical. It also allows us to see information that has been collected from various parts of the world. For example most of the studies that we have looked at in class have not been based in America but in other countries such as the Netherlands, Finland and Amestadam. I think some of the cons however are that the authors of the paper are not anonymous to the reviewers, because as we discussed in class the reviews can be biased. I think another con is that the author of the paper can also suggest to have certain people review their paper and suggest to not certain people review their paper, which can lead to more biases. I think another con is also how authors do not have to disclose if they have a certain patten for a product they may be writing about.