The scholarly journals in professional and scientific fields serve the function of communicating new knowledge and informed discourse on the major issues affecting the field of counseling, and editorial board members (EBMs) serve as gatekeepers of what information will be communicated. The ability of EBMs to make sound judgments directly affects the quality of research and scholarship published. This study analyzed one important EBM qualification, the scholarly productivity of the editorial board members of three major American counseling journals (The Counseling Psychologist [TCP], the Journal of Counseling Psychology [JCP], and the Journal of Counseling and Development [JCD]). An analysis of the productivity rates of editorial board members on these journals was conducted using the PsycINFO database. The results indicated that editorial board members of JCP have significantly more experience publishing than members of TCP and JCD. The differential publication rates of editorial board members suggest that these three journals place different emphasis on scholarly productivity as part of their selection criteria for editorial board membership and may reflect that the three journals have different missions and serve different clientele. These findings have implications, not only for the profession 1 This article is dedicated to our esteemed colleague, Stephen G. Weinrach, who died after a long and courageous battle with leukemia on April 24, 2004. This article was the last that Steve was working on prior to his death. It was his brainchild. The contributions that Steve made to the counseling profession over the years are inestimable. He was truly through his numerous writings and professional association activities the "conscience of the couseling profession." He is dearly missed.