I agree that the acceptance depends upon the expertise of the reviewer.

A weak reviewer could accept a “bad” article or reject a “good” one.

A strong reviewer, probably accept “good” articles and “reject” the bad one, with lots of suggestions to improve it.

Usually three reviewers are selected by the editor (not four..) sometimes two or even one. "Three wise men" may be not enough, I'm also extremely curious what is happening in case of divergent opinions of the reviewers...Probably the greater number of reviewers, the better chance to qualify the paper appropriately..However, the pool of reasearchers who are willing to spend their time to anonymously review manuscripts is restricted. On the other hand, it will be interesting to assess in the study, how the number of reviewers would influence the quality of the accepted manuscript.. (the question is: how to assess this quality?).

I think if all the three reviewers have the expertise in the same area, their review can be quite correct..but what is the possibility of three of them having the expertise in the area of the article under review? 60-70% of the articles that i have received for review are not in my area of expertise!

Article acceptance depends on many subjective items. Good journals try to set up a system that gives reasonably good governance to the process and makes reviewing less subjective. Elements for sound governance would be, among others: (a) at least double blind reviews; (b) careful screening of the article to assign the “best” available reviewers; (c) good review work flow control; (d) thoughtful review protocol and forms; (e) choice of knowledgeable and sensible reviewers (people who consider reviewing also as learning opportunity)

It certainly depends on the expertise, but this word has to be qualified. In my understanding expertise doesn’t mean maximum depth and minimum breadth, but instead the optimal combination of both. Our path in life conditions our culture and that work as a lens through which we see the world. This lens, for the good or for the bad, act as a filter for what we read and examine, therefore we tend to be more receptive to papers that reason the way we do. So next time you are reviewing a paper ask you yourself some questions to avoid natural bias.

An editor will normally depend a lot on [hopefully experienced] reviewers, making the final decision based on the judgements of the reviewers, although not necessarily agreeing with them. A good reviewer will provide comprehensive, fair comments in a way that feeds the editor with the required information, containing the reviewer's judgement fairly and openly. So the answer to your question is a 'Yes, that is very likely.', because a good reviewer will recognise the intrinsic value of the article and outline it.

In response to some comments above: in my attempts to be a good reviewer I strongly believe that i must decline to review articles outside my area of expertise, or at least highlight any limitations in this direction in my comments to the editor.

Finally, just one thought: the influence of the reviewer will also stetch in the opposite direction, namely the quality of the review, especially whether the comments are constructive or destructive will have an influence on the author. Especially for newcomers needlessly agressive and derogative comments can be sould destroying and will not encourage them to improve their draft and try again.

Although assessment of a paper depends on the expertise of reviewers, however, what part we give to the authors. Are they totally ready to accept drastic changes or even rejection from a particular journal? I think no.

However, reviewers role is more critical to the newcomers in publication writing, as said previously.

Dear Mohammad, I think it is imperative to note that usually reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially. Usually the article a rerviewer is asked to review is not disclosed to a third party, and even the identity of the authors is not disclosed to the reviewers.