Abstract The author reflects on the refereeing process involved in the editing of the journal Accounting Horizons. Papers that meet our editorial policy and standards are given a constructive-critical reading. Either a marked-up copy of the manuscript or a letter specifying possible improvements is returned to the author(s) with a note making clear that these are suggestions only. In most cases, editorial suggestions are received, evaluated, and a revised paper submitted. An indicated interest in the subject matter on the part of a referee is often, but not always, an essential. My first opinion of the refereeing process was negative. I saw it as a nuisance, as an interference with editorial privilege and responsibility, and at worst as an opportunity for a sort of interference with academic freedom. Experience has changed my mind on some of these matters but not all. I find perceptive and articulate referees making excellent comments which are then forwarded to authors and are often very well received, resulting eventually in an improved paper. A point I find very interesting is that a conscientious editor can very quickly get such an investment of time in a paper that his interest approaches that of the author rather than that of his readership. Like all good things, however, refereeing also poses its problems. To put it bluntly, I have inadvertently selected as referees some people who do not recognize the difference between censorship and objective evaluation. One of the reasons for the existence of this journal is to encourage open discussion of important issues. The opportunity for publication of one's views in Accounting Horizons is part of the constitutional right to free speech.
R. K Mautz (Sun,) studied this question.