Surprises keep occurring. While the process whereby editors actually make their decisions remains almost as mysterious as at the start, the huge advances in the electronic world have made peer review less expensive, quicker, and more efficient and have brought forth important but competing advances and threats to the validity of scientific publication. Thus, we are interested in continuing the evaluation of the quality of reporting and publication and in further developments in quests for openness—open peer review, postpublication public review and comment, open and public access, data transparency, and transparency of contributions, conflicts, and biases—as well as in better ways to serve readers and users of biomedical publication. Electronic advances also have enabled phony, predatory, and hijacked journals, phony authors, fake reviewers, and articles published in journals trumpeting their rigorous but phony peer review, nonexistent editors, unaware editorial board members, and misleading performance metrics.13- 16 All of these, and no doubt newer tricks, will require investigation and remedies tested, on which we hope to see new research presented and discussed at the next Peer Review Congress. Finally, we remain interested in research into the peer review of grants, peer review as practiced in other sciences, and in the testing of types of peer review, new and old.