Publication in refereed journals is critical to career success for most marketing faculty members, and the peer review process is the gatekeeper for a refereed journal. The study reported here examines marketing academics' perceptions of this peer review process. Based on responses from 653 marketing academics, we find favorable overall impressions of the review process as being fair/unbiased, truly double-blind, timely, and successful in improving the quality of research. But the process is not without concerns. In particular, there are concerns about the ability to have (and adhere to) a truly double-blind review process given the close-knit nature of the academy in conjunction with today's interconnected world. Problematically, researchers express dissatisfaction with the lack of timeliness in the review process. Given these concerns, we offer a strategically oriented recommendation for a code of publishing ethics and a tactically oriented recommendation focused on improvements in manuscript turnaround time. (Contains 6 tables.)