Peer reviewing is a process in which a scientific or scholarly work is placed under review by an expert (or experts) in a field related to said work. These experts will evaluate if the experiment is possible, repeatable, and meritable. This process, if done well and without bias, allows a worthy scholarly work to be published in an official medium such as a journal making it available as an example for others in the field to draw from and granting the original author prestige within their chosen field along with many other benefits. However, this means that the work’s worthiness is at the mercy of these governing peers who may not find the work to be acceptable. In the best-case scenario these reasons can be because the submitted work may be messy, unorganized, or otherwise incomplete to the point of not being a finished. Another “good” reason can be that the submitted article can be scientifically incorrect or otherwise draw a conclusion from a completely falsified study, like a certain article on vaccines. Some fairly bad reasons however can stem from biases within the scientific community. For example, a study was done on the behavioral patterns of penguins in the south pole that some scientists found unpleasant and barred an otherwise perfectly well organized and well founded study because the reviewing peers found the study gross. That is of course assuming you can even get an approving body to even look at the submitted paper. Works have been discarded simply because of where its from, who wrote it, or what particular branch of study it focuses on. So while having a peer reviewed paper can be useful for a career it can also be more trouble than its worth.
