Once a paper has been through the wheels of a peer review, at times having gone back and forth several times, it gets into print and the dust settles over it. Yet, who has not, while researching the literature on a given topic, found oddities or downright mis-statements in publications, coming sometimes from even the most prestigious journals. In order to review critically its own paper selection, the Board of the European Spine Journal has asked two of its members to have a fresh look at our latest volume. Bob Mulholland and Michel Benoist are both recently retired from active clinical practice and, having a bit more time now they have agreed to put their wide experience and knowledge to the service of our readers. They have revisited all the papers published in volume 13 and made a selection for discussion. This selection in no way creates a ranking, with the papers not mentioned being of lesser value. The selection was entirely made by both reviewers on the basis either of controversy, novelty or even deficiency. This ‘reader’s digest’ will help all of us to look at papers with fresh eyes and no doubt allow us to crystallize new ideas and write better papers ourselves. The Michel Benoist and Bob Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal review will be published in the first issue of the volume following the reviewed year.