Background: Depending upon their relationship with the process, stakeholders might have diverging or even conflicting expectations about the functions that peer review should fulfil. We aimed to explore how different stakeholder groups across academic disciplines perceive peer review and what they expect from it. Methods: We conducted qualitative focus group workshops with early-, mid- and senior career scholars, reviewers, editors and publishers. We recruited participants following a purposive maximum variation sampling approach and used a semi-structured topic guide to moderate discussions. To identify purposes of peer review, we conducted a thematic analysis. Results: Stakeholders expected peer review (i) to assess the contributions of a manuscript, (ii) to conduct quality control, (iii) to improve manuscripts, (iv) to assess the suitability of manuscripts for a journals and its readership, (v) to provide a decision-making tool for editors, (vi) to provide feedback by peers, (vii) to curate a community and (viii) to provide a seal of accreditation for published articles. Stakeholder groups with different roles and tasks in the peer review process differed in their understanding of and the value they attached to different functions of peer review. Some stakeholder expectations are contradictory, revealing a tension between formative functions and summative functions of peer review. Conclusions: Stakeholder expectations towards peer review are profoundly shaped by how stakeholders perceive their own roles both in relation to the peer review process and within their scientific community.