Stories about how student law review editors bungled, mis-handled, and ill-treated law professors and our work (especially empirical work) abound. Some of the more outrageous are the stuff of urban legend. (To be fair, I know student editors have more than a few stories of their own that feature misbehaving faculty.) Indeed, a desire to have peers (presumably, knowledgeable peers) review and referee our work helps explain law professors' growing attraction to peer-reviewed journals. The peer-review process, however, is far from perfect. For those interested, the political science journal monitor includes an interesting thread on peer-review war stories.