The goal of the journal review process is to ensure that published manuscripts are of high quality and address important topics. Technical criteria about methodology, rigor, and clarity can impact how a manuscript is reviewed. However, journal reviewers rely on accumulated wisdom about credibility, accuracy, reasonableness, timeliness, and relevance to base their judgment about the appropriateness, desirability, or publishability. The purpose of this study was to explore editorial board members’ experiences in relation to mixed methods research (MMR). Using a MMR design, we explored the extent to which research judgments, skills, and paradigmatic values are diverse among editorial board members for three high-impact early childhood special education journals and how those features interact when reviewers judge research. First, editorial board members were invited to participate in an online survey. Then, editorial board members who volunteered during the survey were individually interviewed. We present the results and discuss how they can inform peer review process. (author abstract)