I enjoyed the guest lecture today; however, I had issue with one of the referenced research articles. This research article was used to support the hypothesis that video games do not induce aggressive or violent behaviour in adolescents or adults. The first crucial point to make here is that it would be extremely difficult to determine the cause of these behaviours, particularly under the current ethics that govern adolescent research, and in general, isolating factors that would cause such behaviours. The second crucial point is that the referenced article was published in an open-sourced journal. What does this mean? It means that this journal lacks the rigorous peer-review process that other journals use. In the scientific field, we reference these articles with extreme caution, and often take it upon ourselves to investigate the credibility of their authors and institutions. I realize that open-sourced journals have many benefits as well, including, but not limited to, increased accessibility, and no or lower publication fees. However, with these benefits comes the removal of the most important vetting process for any publicized research, peer-review. Even the peer-review process is not free of fault. Many articles have passed the peer-review vetting that should have been rejected from the start. However, these instances do not nullify the importance of this step, and if anything, speak more to the necessity of peer-review. It has been interesting to participate in conversations about misconceptions and misinformation, and yet, it is evident that we are still far from perfecting critical analysis of the information we receive and sources we come across.