The journal editor sends copies to other scientists who are experts in the same field. The paper is then accepted, rejected, or returned to the author with suggestions for revision. Peer review thus serves as a tool for weeding out sloppy work and unwarranted conclusions. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal indicates that the paper has met that journal's standards. Of course, not all journals enjoy equal status in the scientific community.
Testimonials are inherently selective.
So, if all 100 people use a certain therapy, half will get better even if the treatment doesn't do anything. This would be completely honest, even though the therapy had done nothing for them. So, testimonials are useless for judging treatment effectiveness. For all we know, those giving the testimonial might be the only people who felt better. Q. I still don't see how scientists can be any more accurate.