No aspect of being an editor is perhaps more daunting then sorting through contradictory reviews given about a manuscript that is outside your area of methodological or theoretical expertise. To put together three volumes of this journal have been required to make decisions about manuscripts involving rhetorical theory and methods. Unfortunately, lack experience and expertise in this area. That is why journal editors have reviewers, persons whose opinions can request and then use in making my evaluations. Reviewers provide advice to editor, ultimately; editor is and must be responsible for content (the acceptance and rejection) of manuscripts. The following questions have invaded my conscious thoughts during this time: (1) Is rhetorical reviewing different from scientific reviewing? And (2) Where does one go to learn about requirements for rhetorical scholarship? Admittedly, those questions are focused on my shortcomings. If question involved issues about scientific research, my experience (some would call that arrogance) gives me ability to feel as though can and should make a decision. But, when you are outside of your domain, reliance and trust that you place in others is greater and higher level of uncertainty about whether your evaluations are reasonable or not. The classic scenario for me involves receipt of three reviews. The reviewers all agree that manuscript represents a competent piece of rhetorical scholarship and is well written. All three reviewers recommend rejection. would look at this and shudder, does one reject well written and competent scholarship? can tell you that for most scientific writing if piece is well written and design competent, chances at publication are very high. This puzzled me and made writing rejection letters rather difficult, why would one reject well written, competent scholarship? asked at least 15 different older and experienced rhetorical scholars some questions about standards for publishable rhetorical scholarship. My question was what constituted sufficient material in a manuscript for publication, was competence enough? Suppose a manuscript came in that did a very good job of using a neoAristotelian analytic perspective to analyze Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech. What a good analysis justify publication? Everyone answered no, that competence was not enough to warrant publication. did then ask what more would be required for publication and everyone said some version of the analysis would have to offer something new. Now, for me, that is not unimportant, but it is a buzz word, because what is new? Brummett's essay in this section does a good job of dissecting that issue and kind of double bind (although it would probably be called a dialectic tension of some sort, current term for a reinvention of conceptual wheel currently popular). While word provides a goal, unpacking of what that word entails and one meets that standards to me were a bit fuzzy. asked for elaboration, whether new meant that phenonmenon had to be one unstudied and if unstudied was that new, if theoretical perspective had to be new (I did ask if a neoAristotelian piece could ever be published and received mixed answers ranging from no, possibly, to yes, if....). Most persons said that scholarship had to contain an argument that related to theory and extended our understanding of theory. did ask, how do you know it does that? Getting beyond statement of standards or requirements to nitty gritty of what has to be present in a text for it to be considered was difficult to assess. Many times heard essentially some version of definition of pornography, one could not define it, but you knew it when you saw it. My essay does not challenge that assertion, my goal is explication of what such a view entails and implications of embracing such a view. …