After a decade of comparative and international education research, evaluation, reflection, and introspection, there still may not be a clear answer to the question: What difference does an "Annual Review of Comparative and International Education" make? Bereday's questions regarding the field from the 1960s largely remain unanswered, and what answers there are remain relatively unchanged from the initial review of the field in 2013. In this reflective piece, the editor of the "Annual Review of Comparative and International Education" provides a retrospective look at what the "Annual Review" of the field has produced as well as what has not been accomplished over the first 10 years of the "Annual Review's" publication. Key points are that (1) comparative and international education continues to be an affiliation-oriented rather than independent, well defined field of study and practice; (2) annual reflection on the field is meaningful even when the field seems resistant to change; and (3) comparative and international education scholars and professionals alike tend to under emphasize reflective scholarship and practice and over emphasize critique or critical commentary; (4) there is promise for the field related to unity, debate, clarification, understanding, and encouragement; (5) the field is persistently under-professionalized; (6) the state of the field is largely unchanged since the 1960s; and (7) the organization and content of the Annual Review itself -- much like the field itself -- is subject to reflection and change. [For the complete volume, "Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2022. International Perspectives on Education and Society. Volume 46, Part A," see ED675024.]