As part of a mixed-methods doctoral project, this study drew on an interview, bracketed by two surveys, with experienced Australian reviewers. It explored questions about the contributions of peer review, the need and possibility to improve it and the driving factors for reviewers to contribute voluntarily. The respondents emphasised the essential status of peer review, especially for ensuring quality in research and publication. They also acknowledged its contributions of gatekeeping, establishing credibility and authority, building capacity, improving quality and facilitating disciplinary dialogue. They indicated there had been no significant change to peer review, and nearly half of them indicated no change was needed. A strong sense of faith and a high level of tolerance of the deficiencies in peer review were evident, which appeared to be related to the awareness that for most problems there was no obvious solution and to an appreciation of the voluntary nature of the task. This faith and tolerance, along with the complex nature of peer review, partially explained why it was so difficult to make any change to it. There is one area where the respondents were keen to see improvement -- they called for their contribution as reviewers to be recognised in a more explicit manner, especially by employing institutions. The study calls into question how long a voluntary system can endure.