In science, we anonymously review manuscripts written by colleagues in the same research field. It is called peer review system.
There are only limited number of people working in the same (or closely related) research field. That means that there are limited number of people who are knowledgeable enough on the subject and who can make appropriate judgement on the values in the manuscript.
When a manuscript on a certain subject is submitted to a journal, the editor may send the manuscript for review and evaluation to a few experts in the field. Based on their comments, the editorial office makes judgement on whether the manuscript would be published in the journal.
The review work is usually voluntary, requested (or solicited) by a journal's editor. We do not get paid for reviewing manuscripts. It is basically a community service.
I usually accept to review, unless they request to review a manuscript that is not involved in my expertise (rare), or unless I am totally swamped by some other work (that can happen).
Reviewing others' work has some merits beyond community service and good karma. For example, I can get in touch with a latest work in the field, and can participate in the generation process of a scientific paper. Also, it can be interesting to see how well the authors respond. It can be educational to watch how other "good professionals" work.
Reviewing certainly can add some appreciation to this "science as a work".
Also in last week, a review came back for my own manuscript that was submitted about 3 months ago. Their comments are constructive and are reasonable. They are something I can address. I'll be on them.
This work puts us in the both sides; the reviewer and the reviewed. In this profession, we encounter occasions to get over with "my side bias" more often than general population.
