Peer-review assessment of manuscripts is generally accepted to be an appropriate way to help the editorial staff of scientific journals to reach informed decisions about which papers to accept for publication. It is also a means by which reviewers can contribute to the effective translation of new ideas into print. Implicit in this statement, however, are two assumptions: first, that editors can recruit skilled reviewers to guide the journals' decision-making efforts; and second, that reviewers will take the time to do a credible job of this unpaid, usually unsung work.