Journal of Orthopaedic Research recognizes those who have served as reviewers of scientific articles in the last year. These individuals deserve the respect and appreciation of our scientific community. No part of a journal's operation is more important than expert scientific review of submitted articles, yet some authors and reviewers express concerns about the process. They point out that it is time consuming and expensive, and at times seems adversarial instead of collegial. A few authors identify examples of reviewers who appear biased or apparently fail to understand the author's methodology or the significance of the reported work, or who advise revision and further review of meritorious manuscripts. The most severe critics argue that peer and editorial review delays scientific progress rather than facilitates it. The review process is time consuming and expensive. In some instances, the other criticisms contain elements of truth as well; however, the vast majority of reviewers prepare thoughtful, informed, constructive evaluations, and the Journal receives very few manuscripts that cannot be improved by critical peer review and revision. Since publication of a manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal is an ultimate measure of the validity and importance of new knowledge, the prospect of eventual peer review influences the choice and refinement of research questions and the design of experiments, as well as the preparation of manuscripts. For these reasons, the Journal of Orthopaedic Research remains committed to rigorous peer review and continually evaluates the process to improve its quality and efficiency. The editors select reviewers on the basis of their expertise and, when possible, their previously demonstrated ability to provide informed constructive reviews. Since papers submitted to the Journal of Orthopaedic Research span a wide variety of scientific disciplines, the editors ask that authors submit the names of three reviewers who have the expertise necessary to evaluate the manuscript. The multidisciplinary content of many manuscripts leads the editors to select reviewers with diverse clinical or scientific perspectives. As a result, it is not unusual that reviewers may have expertise related to a specific aspect of a paper but not to all aspects of the paper. Thus, reviewers may have well founded but divergent opinions concerning the importance and quality of a manuscript and may make contradictory recommendations. The editors take these factors into consideration in making their decisions and recommendations to the authors. The Journal offices invest considerable effort in making the review process efficient by assigning reviewers quickly, following the review process with each reviewer closely, encouraging reviewers to fax their evaluation summary sheets back to the editorial office, and sending decision letters to authors soon after the reviews are received and evaluated. However, the functions of the editorial offices are secondary to those of the reviewers. Providing fair, rapid critiques of articles places a burden on reviewers, especially those with expertise in a subject of widespread current interest; but without their commitment of time, knowledge, and effort, the quality of the Journal of Orthopaedic Research and of orthopaedic research in general would be significantly diminished.