This manuscript describes a preliminary study examining judgments of authors and reviewers regarding manuscripts that have been either accepted or rejected for publication. Consistent with hypotheses, results reveal that participants believe that their own manuscripts are superior to others' manuscripts in terms of general, theoretical, and methodological quality. Relevant to the presumed tendency among reviewers to stress limiting aspects of manuscripts (SLAM), reviewers exhibited greater agreement with editorial decisions favoring rejection, relative to those favoring acceptance. These findings suggest that authors' beliefs in reviewers' tendencies to SLAM can be partially understood in terms of authors' unrealistically favorable and optimistic beliefs regarding their manuscripts and in reviewers' actual tendencies to be quite critical—at least more critical than editors.