ABSTRACT. Campanario and Acedo identify strategies used by researchers to overcome initial resistance and lack of recognition from the rest of the academic community. Neff and Olden use a Bayesian approach and citation data from biological journals to show that top journals successfully publish suitable papers by using a prescreening process that involves an editorial board and three referees. Wilson writes that it is desirable to guard against the tendency for reviewers to provide much more detailed comments on the negative aspects of a proposal than on the positive aspects. Banks states that publishing a peer reviewed article in a prestigious journal remains the highest validation for a work of scholarship and that peer review has enhanced the rigor and relevance of many scientific breakthroughs. Kassirer and Campion make a distinction between the overall process by which editors manage manuscripts (manuscript management) and the cognitive part of this process (manuscript assessment). Opthof et al. observe that reviewers set markedly different standards in their appreciation of manuscripts.