Nevertheless, for all of its flaws, what Churchill said of democracy can also be said applied to peer review: it is the worst system for judging research, except for all of the other alternatives that have ever been tried. (IANS161)
I have never been one to enjoy peer-review, while I do like the feedback I recieve from my peers, I hate the immense pressure I feel to look over someone else's work. Simply because my thoughts may not be right. I may not be giving that person the correct answers. It is a huge responsibility to critique someone's work. So with that in mind why is that peer-reviewed work seems to be given the most credence. Is it because someone checked to see if you made any mistakes, when in fact they could have made several of their own? We trust opinions when they come from a credible source i.e. someone who knows what they're talking about. But even then no one will exactly interpret your work the way you do, so is it worth it? I think that perhaps it is, simply for another perspective that could open your mind, and allow you to witness your own work in a new way. However, ultimately it's up to the reader to form their own opinion despite whatever yours may be.