The process of peer reviewing can be fairly long, from getting through the first rounds of editorial checking to having to re-do experiments with added information that peers recommended adding. Initially editors for a given journal give a paper a pass or not, from there the paper is then passed on to peers who could either be recommended by the author to the editors. This process can be laborious as these reviewers are often experts or well informed on the given topic and typically have the author re-do an experiment adding more trials with different variables or even different experiments in general in order to have sufficient evidence to back up their hypothesis. However this process in itself there are some pretty big pros and cons, an obvious pro is the author can recommend peers who are not looking to hurt their success, in other words people who don’t hate them. This same process can also be a very large con, as the author can recommend only friends or people they are close to who are also in the same field, this could create problems as they could potentially harm the validity of a paper by not giving proper critiques. While there are clear pros and cons the overall process of peer reviewing leads to highly credible papers.