These days everyone loves to hate peer review. It is, the story goes, an old fashioned, evil form of collaboration which has been rendered obsolete by shiny new ways of communicating over the Intarweb. I am part of the problem, since I’m not uncritical of peer review. However, peer review has been so pummeled lately that I am starting to feel sorry for it since, no matter how valid many of the objections against it are, it got caught in a perfect storm of pre-existing antipathy and techno-enthusiasm that could sink pretty much anything. So I want to make a point here about peer review which I feel is under-appreciated: the value it has for improving not articles, but reviewers.