Despite its imperfections, academic peer review has been accepted as a satisfactory process by which assessment panels comprised of different disciplinary representatives arrive at agreement through a system of shared rules and language that respects disciplinary plurality. Artistic researchers, whose output is required to meet both scholarly research criteria and the aesthetic standards expected by their peers in the art world, express concern that university peer review processes disadvantage their disciplines due to differences between artistic research and more science-informed research expectations. As research created with the artistic "white cube" in mind intersects with this "black box" of scholarly peer review, do the shared protocols adopted by peer-review panels extend to research expressed not in scholarly text but in artistic artefact? Are there features inherent in artistic research that impinge upon equitable consideration within these settings? This paper draws upon face-to-face interviews with visual and performing artists in three Australian universities to explore how these researchers experience university peer review. It contributes a distinctive disciplinary perspective to understanding university assessment and evaluation processes for the benefit of both academic staff and postgraduate students.