D. Kronick, Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol.263, issue.10, pp.1321-1323, 1990.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100021002

R. Smith, Peer review: reform or revolution?, BMJ, vol.315, issue.7111, pp.759-60, 1997.
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.315.7111.759

D. Rennie, Editorial peer review: Let us put it on trial, Controlled Clinical Trials, vol.13, issue.6, pp.443-448, 1992.
DOI : 10.1016/0197-2456(92)90201-A

R. Rennie, Editorial peer review: its development and rationale, Peer review in health sciences, pp.1-13, 2003.

T. Jefferson, E. Wager, and F. Davidoff, Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review, JAMA, vol.287, issue.21, pp.2786-90, 2002.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.287.21.2786

R. Smith, Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol.99, issue.4, pp.178-82, 2006.
DOI : 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178

W. Baxt, J. Waeckerle, and J. Berlin, Who Reviews the Reviewers? Feasibility of Using a Fictitious Manuscript to Evaluate Peer Reviewer Performance, Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol.32, issue.3, pp.310-317, 1998.
DOI : 10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70006-X

R. Kravitz, P. Franks, and M. Feldman, Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?, PLoS ONE, vol.2, issue.6, p.10072, 2010.
DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072.t001

M. Henderson, Problems with peer review, BMJ, vol.340, issue.mar15 1, p.1409, 2010.
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.c1409

M. Yaffe, Re-reviewing Peer Review, Science Signaling, vol.2, issue.85, p.11, 2009.
DOI : 10.1126/scisignal.285eg11

P. Stahel and E. Moore, Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system, BMC Medicine, vol.494, issue.1, p.179, 2014.
DOI : 10.1038/494161a

S. Ghimire, E. Kyung, and W. Kang, Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals, Trials, vol.11, issue.1, p.77, 2012.
DOI : 10.1186/1745-6215-11-32

I. Boutron, S. Dutton, and P. Ravaud, Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes, JAMA, vol.303, issue.20, pp.2058-64, 2010.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.2010.651

S. Hopewell, G. Collins, and I. Boutron, Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study, BMJ, vol.349, issue.jul01 8, p.4145, 2014.
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.g4145

E. Turner, A. Matthew, and E. Linardatos, Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy, New England Journal of Medicine, vol.358, issue.3, pp.252-60, 2008.
DOI : 10.1056/NEJMsa065779

H. Melander, J. Ahlqvist-rastad, and G. Meijer, Evidence b(i)ased medicine--selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications, BMJ, vol.326, issue.7400, pp.1171-1174, 2003.
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1171

C. Lazarus, R. Haneef, and P. Ravaud, Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention, BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol.62, issue.9, p.85, 2015.
DOI : 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.008

T. Jefferson, P. Alderson, and E. Wager, Effects of Editorial Peer Review, JAMA, vol.287, issue.21, pp.2784-2790, 2002.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.287.21.2784

J. Galipeau, D. Moher, and C. Campbell, A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol.68, issue.3, pp.257-65, 2015.
DOI : 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.024

I. White, J. Carpenter, and S. Evans, Eliciting and using expert opinions about dropout bias in randomized controlled trials, Clinical Trials, vol.40, issue.2, pp.125-164, 2007.
DOI : 10.1177/1740774507077849

T. Jefferson, M. Rudin, B. Folse, and S. , Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, vol.2, p.16, 2007.

J. Higgins and S. Green, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated, 2011.

S. Goodman, J. Berlin, and S. Fletcher, Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, vol.121, issue.1, pp.11-21, 1994.
DOI : 10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003

D. Altman, K. Schulz, and D. Moher, The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration, Annals of Internal Medicine, vol.134, issue.8, pp.663-672, 2001.
DOI : 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012

S. Van-rooyen, N. Black, and F. Godlee, Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for Assessing Peer Reviews of Manuscripts, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol.52, issue.7, pp.625-634, 1999.
DOI : 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00047-5

M. Callaham, W. Baxt, and J. Waeckerle, Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.229-260, 1998.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.280.3.229

N. Black, S. Van-rooyen, F. Godlee, R. Smith, and S. Evans, What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.231-234, 1998.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.280.3.231

J. Higgins, D. Altman, and P. Gotzsche, The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, BMJ, vol.343, issue.oct18 2, p.5928, 2011.
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.d5928

J. Higgins and S. Green, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated, 2011.

I. Borman, DigitizeIt software v2, 2016.

J. Higgins and S. Green, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated, 2011.

J. Higgins and S. Green, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated, 2011.

S. Schroter, N. Black, and S. Evans, Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial, BMJ, vol.328, issue.7441, p.673, 2004.
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE

M. Callaham, R. Knopp, and E. Gallagher, Effect of Written Feedback by Editors on Quality of Reviews, JAMA, vol.287, issue.21, pp.2781-2784, 2002.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.287.21.2781

M. Callaham and D. Schriger, Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers, Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol.40, issue.3, pp.323-331, 2002.
DOI : 10.1067/mem.2002.127121

D. Houry, S. Green, and M. Callaham, Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial, BMC Medical Education, vol.8, issue.1, p.83, 2012.
DOI : 10.1186/1471-2288-8-3

C. Arnau, E. Cobo, and J. Ribera, Efecto de la revisi??n estad??stica en la calidad de los manuscritos publicados en MEDICINA CL??NICA: estudio aleatorizado, Medicina Cl??nica, vol.121, issue.18, pp.690-694, 2003.
DOI : 10.1016/S0025-7753(03)74064-0

E. Cobo, A. Selva-o-'callagham, and J. Ribera, Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial, PLoS ONE, vol.19, issue.5, p.332, 2007.
DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0000332.s002

E. Cobo, K. Cortes, and J. Ribera, Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial, BMJ, vol.343, issue.nov22 2, p.6783, 2011.
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.d6783

D. Sinha, S. Sahni, P. Nundy, and S. , Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?, Natl Med J India, vol.12, issue.5, pp.210-213, 1999.

S. Van-rooyen, F. Godlee, and S. Evans, Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial, BMJ, vol.318, issue.7175, pp.23-30, 1999.
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23

S. Van-rooyen, T. Delamothe, and S. Evans, Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial, BMJ, vol.341, issue.nov16 2, p.5729, 2010.
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.c5729

S. Vinther, O. Nielson, and J. Rosenberg, Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in, Ugeskrift for Laeger " . Dan Med, vol.59, issue.8, p.4479, 2012.

E. Walsh, M. Rooney, and L. Appleby, Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial, The British Journal of Psychiatry, vol.176, issue.1, pp.47-51, 2000.
DOI : 10.1192/bjp.176.1.47

F. Godlee, C. Gale, and C. Martyn, Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.237-277, 1998.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.280.3.237

S. Van-rooyen, F. Godlee, and S. Evans, Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.234-241, 1998.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.280.3.234

M. Alam, N. Kim, and J. Havey, Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study, British Journal of Dermatology, vol.8, issue.3, pp.563-570, 2011.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10432.x

M. Fisher, S. Friedman, and B. Strauss, The Effects of Blinding on Acceptance of Research Papers by Peer Review, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol.272, issue.2, pp.143-149, 1994.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020069019

A. Justice, M. Cho, and M. Winker, Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.240-243, 1998.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.280.3.240

R. Mcnutt, A. Evans, and R. Fletcher, The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol.263, issue.10, pp.1371-1377, 1990.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.263.10.1371

R. Pitkin and L. Burmeister, Identifying Manuscript Reviewers, JAMA, vol.287, issue.21, pp.2795-2801, 2002.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.287.21.2795

S. Johnston, D. Lowenstein, and D. Ferriero, Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: A randomized trial, Annals of Neurology, vol.59, issue.4, pp.10-12, 2007.
DOI : 10.1002/ana.21150

D. Neuhauser and C. Koran, Calling Medical Care Reviewers First A Randomized Trial, Medical Care, vol.27, issue.6, pp.664-670, 1989.
DOI : 10.1097/00005650-198906000-00009

D. Rennie, E. Knoll, and A. Flangrin, The International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol.261, issue.5, p.749, 1989.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.1989.03420050099049

A. Chauvin, P. Ravaud, and G. Baron, The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors, BMC Medicine, vol.26, issue.1, p.158, 2015.
DOI : 10.1016/j.cct.2005.02.008