The peer review system is designed to ensure the quality of scientific publications. If there are deficiencies, the authors receive feedback and can improve the text or the figures. Ideally, the reader can then be sure that other experts have already checked the content. Without peer review, a lot of garbage would be published. Of course, this system also involves a certain degree of arbitrariness and bears the risk of abuse of their position by the reviewers. See also the following discussions:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_peer-review_itself_scientific

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_peer-review_censorship_or_necessary_evil

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_may_be_the_quality_elements_or_criteria_for_an_excellent_review

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_we_obtain_a_better_peer_reviewing

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_you_think_we_might_we_improve_peer_review_and_the_quality_of_scientific_publications

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_would_you_improve_the_peer_review_process_Any_ideas_to_make_it_more_robust_and_useful_for_authors

Based on my own experience and that of a few friends of mine I do have questions and am not convinced? 1) who designed the peer review processs and what makes it exempt from unanticipated consequences ? 2) How does it ensure quality? I have as have others received feedback and not the kind that would improve the text but received as criticism or skepticism that when one is young has served to dissuade the author from publishing. I am not claiming to know one way or the other whether without peer review, "a lot of garbage would be published." I am wondering however about what is not published due to the bias of the reviewer. 3) What do you mean by "a certain degree of arbitrariness and why then "of course"? I will be answering the latter two questions in my book. That said, I see only a reason to self publish holding myself accountable to the facts and not claiming to be perfect but aiming to confine myself to the facts and inferences that can be made from them.

Peer reviewers represent at least portion of the views that exist in a given research field. It is the author's responsibility to address how their research relates to the main approaches in the field, and especially those that do not point in the same direction as your work. Rather than treating these kinds of disagreements as "biases" on the part of the reviewers, it is far more effective to respond to them as alternative points of view within your field.

I don't like the word bias and won't be using it myself. The problem is that so far as I know, the word preference as allowing for choice and for limits tends not to be employed. I am not looking for a more effective way of handling disagreements but rather for an understanding wherein its not a matter of a disagreement but of a misunderstanding that can be avoided by way of keeping an open mind. Thanks for enabling me to become clear.

Thank you Dr. Robyn Goldstein for raising this important question.

MW dictionary explains the term peer review as a noun having the following meaning

: a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field.

From your question it is not clear if you meant one reviewer's or multiple reviewers'.

Then you go on to mention 'The biases of the reviewer'

Needless to say that the outcome of peer review process can certainly be get in the way of genuine progress. But it depends on the Publisher or the funding agency responsible for grants as

how objectively they carry out the complete process.

Hope it helps.

Thank you for andwering my question.

Peer review should ensure that weaknesses are pointed out so they can be corrected. In reviewing articles especially in a second round of reviews (i.e. when the editor is uncertain and sends the paper out for second opinions) I sometimes find the problem is that earlier referees have been too uncritical. They urge publication and ignore fundamental flaws. Whether this is because they don’t see them or because they are ‘soft’ and don’t want to be a source of discouragement is hard to say. A lot depends on editors choosing well qualified reviewers.

Have decided to publish myself. If anything the book will generate didccussion and i hope more than that. I can always add a new edition

Discussion

As Laurence wright commented, peer and technucal review corrects errors - technical, conceptual and editorial. As an editor of a journal, I have not encountered a manuscript acceptable as submitted.

Robyn Goldstein seems a bit arrogant to publish without peer and technical review, without the considerations of those not enlisted in your effort. But perhaps it make no difference in sociology.

Quite the contrary. My work has alteady been reviewed justvnot in the usual way. And that will be in the booknas well. It took me 61?years to figure it iut

Soory for typos. Phone does not allow me to see what i have written til after

I was fortunate to have have a few great teachers

Thanks for raising your question. My response nevervoccurred to me before which is y i raised the question innthe first olace.

I mean the part about about aboutbpeer review. Though a fellow sociologistvis reading it now for clarity and another friend for grammar and typos.

Ironic - appears you need editorial review of your posts.

Science progresses constantly and there's no way any of us can know it all at any point in time. Peer review offers a collective knowiedge of the latest knowledge that is most important for submissions claiming novelty.

For books, some publishers run them by experts some do not.