From the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH P eer-review is defined as the expert assessment of submitted materials. Because ‘‘the goal of this process is to ensure that the valid article is accepted, the messy article improved, and the invalid article rejected,’’ quality reviews are essential to the peer-review process and assist in maintaining the integrity of the medical literature. Grainger believes that ‘‘a critical determinant of any successful journal or technical communication in general is the sound, reliable capability to readily access a talented, adept, accomplished and reliable reviewer pool.’’ Because The Journal of Pediatrics publishes articles focusing on a wide variety of specialties and subspecialties in the field of pediatrics, The Journal uses an extensive historical database of experts, to which more are added daily. However, because of heavy workloads and time constraints of potential reviewers, it is often challenging for the editors to secure a commitment to review a manuscript from appropriate reviewers. Editors of The Journal usually choose reviewers from these sources: (1) personal knowledge of experts in the field; (2) authors of articles referenced in the manuscript; (3) reviewers suggested by the authors; (4) literature searches; (5) requesting suggestions from the editorial board; and (6) Elsevier Editorial System (EES) report of manuscript/personal classification matches. Occasionally, reviewers will be invited because another reviewer who declined or was uninvited suggests an individual as a good alternative candidate. Occasionally editors will choose reviewers from eTBlast, a freely available ‘‘similarity-based search engine,’’ which allows them to find ‘‘authors that are the most published in the topic of [their] query’’ (http://etest.vbi.vt.edu/etblast3/).