Describe the process of peer review to someone who doesn’t frequently read scientific articles. Consider the pros and cons of peer review and how that might impact the credibility of the results that come from that scientific article.
Peer review is a process where research papers and articles in the science world (although peer reviewing is used in many other fields too) are evaluated by fellow researchers and scientists for quality and validity, as well as assessing if it’s suitable for publication.
Some pros of peer review are that it’s a process where the paper is reviewed by like-minded people of similar experience and expertise, so the suggestions they make substantially improve the paper. Another pro is that peer review provides a way of filtering material, so you can find out what the editor approves of and doesn’t approve of at a low level.
On the other hand, cons of peer review include the fact that STEM and academia as a whole are both very exclusive elitist fields, where specific boundaries and norms are policed even if those boundaries and “norms” aren’t beneficial in the long run or if they exclude groups of people based off of age, race, gender, class, etc. Another con is that the peer review process slows publication, and there’s also potentially newer or better ways to filter material without peer reviewing.
