Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.

Comments and advice from others never fail (double negatives are confusing) to be a constructive way to help the author refine his work (simplify). Thinking about the same thing from a different perspective (wordy, simplify), there could be many unexpected discoveries that could (can) not be attained by the author himself. However, somebody  (who? too vague) argues that the eligibility of the commenter or reviewer needs to be qualified, saying that (because) the judgment would not be that valuable if it comes from someone that lacks expertise in a certain view (simplify). This statement, while making sense under several circumstances, fails to reveal the core significance of (missing article) critical judgment.

Admittedly, the comments from expertise are generally more consistent and insightful. With several years of professional training, the expert in a certain field is guaranteed to understand most of the assumptions and premise that the work is built on. Such knowledge gives them fast access to the main idea of the work, thus endowing them with a clear logic to make their critical judgment. Especially in the aspect of technical content, expertise is indispensable to evaluate the performance of the work. Considering a layman without even knowing the technical term mentioned in the scientific journal, how could he give feedback for the validity of the scientific theory?

Consequently, the importance of experts’ critical judgment needs to be acknowledged, but that could never be a reason for us to ignore the voice of others. One apparent reason for this is that an article would scarcely be written only for the expertise. For example, some scientific blogs online are especially targeting the audience who lacks knowledge in that field. The article is designed to have an educational functionality rather than just presenting their technical achievement. In this case, the coherence, as well as the readability plays an important role. Even one without experience in that field is eligible to judge the presenting and wording of the work. They are even better than expertise to judge the explanation of terminology with their lack of prior knowledge.

For art and creative work, the comments from the general audience are even more important than from experts in the essence that some creative work is designed to serve more audience. Also, with the subjectivity embedded in the artistic and creative work, the potential in understanding it from a different perspective is broader than understanding a scientific work. Therefore, the comment from a variety of audiences enhances the diversity and meaning of a work.

In conclusion, although we need expert judgment for the work, the voice and view from others are also valuable in the critical judgment of a work.