This study examines reviewer practices at 11 marketing journals. The results for the top three journals are compared to eight comparable journals that are typically considered to be non-top-tier journals. The results suggest that the reviewers and the review processes at the top journals differ significantly from those of the non-top-tier journals. One of the most important findings is the degree to which the double-blind review process is being employed. The results may provide aspiring authors with a greater understanding and empathy of the review process, which in turn may allow them to be more successful with their article submissions. (Contains 8 tables.)