Peer review is not included in undergraduate horticultural curricula. Our research objectives in an 8- year study, which ranged from 2000 to 2007 in two sections (2000-2002 non-peer reviewed and 2003-2007 peer-reviewed) of Greenhouse Management students at the University of Minnesota were to determine whether iterative peer reviews would result in improved learning, enhanced writing, refined revision processes, and higher written paper/course grades for undergraduate and professional horticulture students, as well as the effects of double blinding, whether years affected any parameter and the validity/reliability of peer reviews. Both sections were assigned a semesterlong, 3-phase writing-intensive assignment. Principle findings that emerged were: (a) after engaging in iterative structured peer-reviews, student final grades in the peer review group exceeded those in 2/3 of non-peer reviewed years; (b) students quickly identified superior papers; (c) while students grasped the peer review process and matched their editing skills with the instructor and teaching assistants by Phase II, a lag time (Phase III) occurred before it significantly increased their grades; (d) graded paper scores were not different across years; (e) anonymity of peer reviews had no effect; and (f) students were initially able to recognize writing issues in peers' drafts and address them in their own writing. Inclusion of more than 2 peer reviews into horticulture courses is highly recommended.