In this article, we extrapolate from writings addressing peer review in research journals, and general essays for all published writing, to consider the process of review in journals created for music education practitioners. We examine potential biases in recruiting review board members, the practices of reviewers, and the responsibilities of editors who shepherd the manuscript through the system. Further, questions arise concerning the ethics of transparency as manuscripts travel from hand to hand, pointing to dilemmas across an author-editor-reviewer triad embedded in systems of readership, publication, and profession. The review process may allow reviewers disproportionate power over what counts for knowledge in music education and how that knowledge should be communicated. Some critics suggest peer reviews should include more transparency to hold reviewers accountable. Given these and other concerns, we question how the review process for practitioner journals might be improved and make suggestions related to reviewer selection and training, the sponsoring organization's stated commitment to communicating innovative practitioner ideas, and the relationships between author, reviewer, and editor.