D. A. Kronick, Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism, JAMA, vol.263, issue.10, pp.1321-1323, 1990.

T. Jefferson, P. Alderson, E. Wager, and F. Davidoff, Effects of editorial peer review, JAMA, vol.287, issue.21, pp.2784-2790, 2002.

R. Smith, Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals, J R Soc Med, vol.99, pp.178-82, 2006.

W. G. Baxt, J. F. Waeckerle, J. A. Berlin, and M. L. Callaham, Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance, Ann Emerg Med, vol.32, issue.3, pp.310-317, 1998.

R. L. Kravitz, P. Franks, M. D. Feldman, M. Gerrity, C. Byrne et al., Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal : are they reliable and do editors care?, PLoS One, vol.5, issue.4, pp.2-6, 2010.

M. B. Yaffe, Re-reviewing peer review, Sci Signal, vol.2, issue.85, pp.1-3, 2009.

P. F. Stahel and E. E. Moore, Peer review for biomedical publications : we can improve the system, BMC Med, vol.12, issue.179, pp.1-4, 2014.

D. Rennie, Make peer review scientific, Nature, vol.535, pp.31-34, 2016.

D. Moher, Custodians of high-quality science: are editors and peer reviewers good enough?, 2017.

S. Ghimire, K. E. Kang, W. Kim, and E. , 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.13, p.77, 2012.

I. Boutron, S. Dutton, P. Ravaud, and D. G. Altman, Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results, JAMA, vol.303, issue.20, pp.2058-64, 2010.

S. Hopewell, G. S. Collins, I. Boutron, L. Yu, J. Cook et al., Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study, BMJ, vol.349, p.4145, 2014.

C. Lazarus, R. Haneef, P. Ravaud, and I. Boutron, Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention, BMC Med Res Methodol, vol.15, p.85, 2015.

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.

R. Bruce, A. Chauvin, L. Trinquart, P. Ravaud, and I. Boutron, Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis, BMC Med, vol.14, p.85, 2016.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inserm-01332189

D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, and T. P. Group, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses : the PRISMA statement, PLoS Med, vol.6, issue.7, p.1000097, 2009.

. Nhs and . Prospero, International prospective register of systematic reviews, 2017.

S. Sanderson, I. D. Tatt, and J. Higgins, Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography, Intern J Epidemiol, vol.36, pp.666-76, 2007.

. R-core-team, R: a language and environment for statistical computing, 2017.

S. J. Gentles, C. Charles, D. B. Nicholas, J. Ploeg, and K. A. Mckibbon, Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research, Syst Rev, vol.5, p.172, 2016.

B. Glaser and A. Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967.

D. P. Friedman, Manuscript peer review at the AJR: facts, figures, and quality assessment, Am J Roentgenol, vol.164, issue.4, pp.1007-1016, 1995.

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.

S. J. Henly and M. C. Dougherty, Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research, Nurs Outlook, vol.57, issue.1, pp.18-26, 2009.

M. L. Callaham, W. G. Baxt, J. F. Waeckerle, and R. L. Wears, Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.229-260, 1998.

M. L. Callaham, R. K. Knopp, and E. J. Gallagher, Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials, JAMA, vol.287, issue.21, pp.2781-2784, 2002.

S. Van-rooyen, F. Godlee, S. Evans, N. Black, and R. Smith, 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.

R. A. Mcnutt, A. T. Evans, R. H. Fletcher, and S. W. Fletcher, The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review, JAMA, vol.263, issue.10, pp.1371-1377, 1990.

A. Moore and R. Jones, Supporting and enhancing peer review in the BJGP, Br J Gen Pract, vol.64, issue.624, pp.459-61, 2014.

T. P. Stossel, Reviewer status and review quality, N Engl J Med, vol.312, issue.10, pp.658-667, 1985.

S. R. Thompson, J. Agel, and E. Losina, The JBJS peer-review scoring scale: a valid, reliable instrument for measuring the quality of peer review reports, Learn Publ, vol.29, pp.23-28, 2016.

A. Rajesh, G. Cloud, and M. G. Harisinghani, Improving the quality of manuscript reviews : impact of introducing a structured electronic template to submit reviews, AJR, vol.200, pp.20-23, 2013.

M. M. Shattell, P. Chinn, S. P. Thomas, and W. R. Cowling, Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals, J Nurs Scholarsh, vol.42, issue.1, pp.58-65, 2010.

S. A. Jawaid, M. Jawaid, and M. H. Jafary, Characteristics of reviewers and quality of reviews: a retrospective study of reviewers at Pakistan journal of medical sciences, Pakistan J Med Sci, vol.22, issue.2, pp.101-107, 2006.

A. C. Justice, M. K. Cho, M. A. Winker, and J. A. Berlin, Does masking author identity improve peer review quality ? A randomized controlled trial, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.240-243, 1998.

S. J. Henly, J. A. Bennett, and M. C. Dougherty, Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to nursing research: comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness, Nurs Outlook, vol.58, issue.4, pp.188-99, 2010.

A. Hettyey, M. Griggio, M. Mann, S. Raveh, F. C. Schaedelin et al., Peerage of science: will it work?, Trends Ecol Evol, vol.27, issue.4, pp.189-90, 2012.

. Publons, , 2017.

S. Van-rooyen, N. Black, and F. Godlee, Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts, J Clin Epidemiol, vol.52, issue.7, pp.625-634, 1999.

A. T. Evans, R. A. Mcnutt, S. W. Fletcher, and R. H. Fletcher, The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews, J Gen Intern Med, vol.8, issue.8, pp.422-430, 1993.

I. Feurer, G. Becker, D. Picus, E. Ramirez, M. Darcy et al., Evaluating peer reviews: pilot testing of a grading instrument, JAMA, vol.272, issue.2, pp.98-100, 1994.

A. P. Landkroon, A. M. Euser, and H. Veeken, Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument, Obstet Gynecol, vol.108, issue.4, pp.979-85, 2006.

S. Greenland and K. O'rourke, On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions, Biostatistics, vol.2, issue.4, pp.463-71, 2001.

P. Jüni, A. Witschi, and R. Bloch, The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis, JAMA, vol.282, issue.11, pp.1054-60, 1999.

J. Higgins, D. G. Altman, P. C. Gøtzsche, P. Jüni, D. Moher et al., The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, BMJ, vol.343, p.5928, 2011.

S. Schroter, A. Price, and E. Flemyng, Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals, BMJ Open, vol.8, p.23357, 2018.

M. ?urkovi? and A. Ko?ec, Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility, BMC Med Res Methodol, vol.18, issue.1, p.130, 2018.

I. Chalmers, M. B. Bracken, B. Djulbegovic, S. Garattini, J. Grant et al., How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set, Lancet, vol.383, issue.9912, pp.156-65, 2014.

M. A. Kliewer, K. S. Freed, D. M. Delong, P. J. Pickhardt, and J. M. Provenzale, Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American journal of roentgenology, AJR, vol.184, issue.6, pp.1731-1736, 2005.

T. Berquist, Improving your reviewer score: it's not that difficult, AJR, vol.209, pp.711-713, 2017.

M. L. Callaham and C. Mcculloch, Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers, Ann Emerg Med, vol.57, issue.2, pp.141-149, 2011.

Y. Yang, Effects of training reviewers on quality of peer review: a before-andafter study (Abstract, 2017.

L. Prechelt, Review quality collector, 2017.

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.

M. L. Callaham and D. L. Schriger, Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers, Ann Emerg Med, vol.40, issue.3, pp.323-331, 2002.