The exercise of peer review is not only a essential part of science but it is an ongoing learning experience. It is amazing how much you can learn by reviewing somebody else work. One aspect that has call my attention in this learning experience is how important the scientific goals, the objectives, and the justification of the study are. This are simple concepts but I find that are very difficult to execute in paper. I wonder if it is a common problem in science. Does scientists think too much on the methodology of data and do not pay attention on why the study is important? or what is the overall goal of the study?
This experience of reviewing another paper has been interesting and has remind me of crappy arguments against peer-review that I have heard in the past