Someone me a scientific paper that has passed through the peer review process is more respected than one that has not. why might a scientist value a peer-reviewed paper? a. the analysis of the experimental results is guaranteed to be entertaining. b. the described experiment meets or exceeds the standards of good science. c. the scientist who wrote the paper is likely to become a famous person. d. the described materials are expected to become a good investment.

The correct answer is B. The described experiment meets or exceeds the standards of good science.

Explanation:

In science, it is common after research scientists publish information about the process and results in scientific papers or articles. Additionally, the credibility and reliability of this documents and of the research itself depend on multiple factors and one of this is whether the paper has been review by another expert in the field which called peer-reviewed paper. Indeed papers that have gone through the peer-review process are more credible and therefore more value by other scientists as in general terms this guarantees the results can be believed as each step in the research fits with the standards of good science because the scientists who reviewed the paper approve it. Therefore, the reason a scientist value a peer-reviewed paper is that the escribed experiment meets or exceeds the standards of good science.

thinking it would be d not too sure but i think it's right