The article focuses on the review process employed by academic journals from the perspective of the sociology of organization. We propose a scheme that takes into consideration what is more important for editorial boards (legitimacy or effectiveness) and how they confirm their legitimacy claims (through outputs in the form of papers or through procedures). The conceptual advantage of the scheme is illustrated by the case study of the journal, Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya (Sociological Studies), for the period from 1992 till 2011. Based on an analysis of the journal headings (491 cases of headings and 1230 published papers) and 8 interviews with editors, it is shown that the main task of the editorial board is to represent the discipline in all its diversity through the structural divisions of the journal space and the wide geographical coverage of the authors. Accomplishing this mission of representation in a situation with scarce resources can be maintained only through a special editorial style of the journal, which differs from the obligatory double-blind peer reviewing of all manuscripts submitted. When the editorial office has clear tasks related to the content of the journal, the most appropriate form is the network form of governance because external peer reviews make it difficult to fill journal space. In the acquisition of manuscripts, a network search is combined with the incoming submissions; the crucial role in decision-making belongs to the editor-in-chief. These practices diminish the quality of published manuscripts that are selected for publication in the journal. We explain how less control of editorial practices through the efforts of editors confirm a journal’s claim to fulfill its mission.