As part of our efforts to address racial, gender, and other (intersecting) inequalities in academic publishing, the editorial board of the European Journal of Legal Studies (EJLS, the Journal) has recently amended its peer review template to include the following question: Should the author consider citing a more diverse range of sources (e.g. with respect to language, gender, region, etc)? This amendment seeks to operationalise a component of our new author guidelines, according to which 'EJLS strongly encourages authors to cite early career researchers and to reflect regional, gender, and linguistic diversity in their citations'. This is one of the more challenging aspects of the Journal's recent efforts to confront issues of inequality in academia. Other measures, such as improving the 'blindness' of our submission procedure, can be quite straightforwardly addressed through technical and procedural changes to our review process. By contrast, addressing citation diversity necessitates a more substantive shift in our approach to authors' work, in turn requiring the buyin and engagement of all the Journal's editors. The original proposal to introduce a criterion of this sort sparked a robust debate among board members: for some, this was a very welcome development; others were rather less convinced. In this editorial, we respond to some of the concerns raised and reflect more broadly on the scope and limitations of peer review as a means of improving 'diversity' in academic publishing.