I mention this significant point because this rigorous process is different from other information distribution. For example, this blog. While it is useful, it is not a scientific result. Did I have to submit an application to be published here on this blog? No. Has my writing been reviewed and edited by experts? No. Is it possible that I have no idea what I am talking about and that I may not be a professor or even a physicist? Yes. All I can give you is my word. I am Dr. Hay, Associate Professor of Physics, at Pacific Lutheran University. Peer review is more reliable. It allows other researchers to move forward confidently from the point where the published work left off.
How to do a Peer Review
· Peer-Reviewers do not decide whether they like the results of an article. Rather, they decide if the experimental process is robust and if the work is relevant and communicated well.
Briefly mention strengths of the article and provide a detailed list of shortcomings of the article, possibly answering these:
Provide any additional constructive comments to the author(s) for improving and revising the article. And remember, the author can read your entire review.