A lot of research has shown that team members often come to share common evaluations of fairness, known as justice climate. Most of past studies tend to emphasize the fairness with which people are treated by those formal authorities in power. In fact, teams can estimate the fairness of the stakeholders that do not have formal authority over each other, their peers. Scholars in this area of organizational justice normally distinguish between them, formerly referred to as authority justice climate, defined as the team members' shared perceptions about the fairness of (formal) authorities, lastly referred to as peer justice climate, defined as teams’ shared perceptions about the way team members, who do not have formal authority over each other, treat one another. Previous researchers articulated the construct of peer justice climate, and suggested that it included at least three dimensions: distributive, procedural, and interpersonal. Peer distributive justice climate refers to the extent to which teammates receive what they deserve based on their contribution. Peer procedural justice climate refers to perceived fairness of the procedures and decision-making process within the team. Peer interpersonal justice climate refers to the perceived quality of interpersonal treatment from teammates. Subsequently, scholars made a more thorough examination of the structure of peer justice climate, and found that the structure was best represented by a hierarchical approach. At the first level were the three specific facets of peer justice climate: distributive, procedural and interpersonal. These dimensions, though distinguishable, were correlated. At the second level, they all loaded on a global second-order dimension (peer overall justice climate). In addition, past studies on the effects of peer justice climate indicated that peer justice climate was significantly related to satisfaction with one’s teammates and performance. Furtherly, teamwork quality mediated the relationship between peer justice climate and outcome variables (unit level citizenship behavior and satisfaction with teammates). In other words, peer justice boosts the quality of interaction among team members. This enhanced quality, in turn, engenders favorable attitudes and OCB. Based on these studies, future research should focus on the following aspects: (1explore furtherly the antecedents of peer justice climate. (2) From the perspective of team-member exchange, choose more variables about teamwork process (e.g., conflict, coordination) and emergent states (e.g., team identity, group morale), to reveal the underlying mechanisms of the effects of peer justice climate. (3) Test the moderating roles of new variables, such as peer justice climate strength, justice orientation, and group power distance etc. play in the relationship between peer justice climate and team effectiveness. (4) Use the longitudinal design to conduct more research on peer justice climate. (5) Based on Chinese unique culture, choose more relevant variable, such as team collectivistic orientation, intra-team guanxi and team value etc. conduct more research on peer justice climate.