Mainstream journals, whether printed or electronic, are characterized –among other standards- by the use of external peer review to critically assess those manuscripts that have been submitted for publication. Although the editors’ decisions are independent and usually final, they rely strongly on peer reviewers’ reports. The criticisms, advices, or specific suggestions contained in peer reviewers’ reports are a good stimulus to improve the manuscripts before its acceptance and publication. This article summarizes the stages of the manuscripts’ review process in Revista Médica de Chile. During the year 2012, 534 persons participated as peer-reviewers. Each one reviewed one or more manuscripts in the year. Their names are listed in this article, in recognition of their voluntary contribution to the quality of this journal.Mainstream journals, whether printed or electronic, are characterized –among other standards- by the use of external peer review to critically assess those manuscripts that have been submitted for publication. Although the editors’ decisions are independent and usually final, they rely strongly on peer reviewers’ reports. The criticisms, advices, or specific suggestions contained in peer reviewers’ reports are a good stimulus to improve the manuscripts before its acceptance and publication. This article summarizes the stages of the manuscripts’ review process in Revista Médica de Chile. During the year 2012, 534 persons participated as peer-reviewers. Each one reviewed one or more manuscripts in the year. Their names are listed in this article, in recognition of their voluntary contribution to the quality of this journal.