O. Auranen and M. Nieminen, University research funding and publication performance???An international comparison, Research Policy, vol.39, issue.6, pp.822-834, 2010.
DOI : 10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.003
URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.003

Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, and . Starbuck, Opening the black box of editorship, 2008.
DOI : 10.1057/9780230582590

C. Bazerman, Shaping written knowledge: the genre and activity of the experimental article in science, 1988.

E. P. Benedek, Editorial practices of psychiatric and related journals: implications for women, American Journal of Psychiatry, vol.133, issue.1, pp.89-92, 1976.

I. Douglas-wilson, Twilight of the medical journal?, British Medical Journal, vol.3, issue.5926, pp.326-327, 1974.

L. D. Berg, Masculinism, emplacement, and positionality in peer review. The Professional Geographer, pp.511-521, 2001.

R. M. Blank, The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from the American Economic Review, American Economic Review, vol.81, issue.5, pp.1041-1067, 1991.

I. Bohlin, Communication Regimes in Competition, Social Studies of Science, vol.9, issue.26, pp.365-391, 2004.
DOI : 10.1177/0306312704041522

J. Bollen, H. Van-de-sompel, A. Hagberg, and R. Chute, A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures, PLoS ONE, vol.4, issue.6, p.6022, 2009.
DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0006022.s001

L. Boltanski and L. Thévenot, On Justification: Economies of Worth (p. 400), 2006.

L. Bornmann, Scientific peer review, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, vol.24, issue.7, pp.197-245, 2011.
DOI : 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112

W. Broad and N. Wade, Betrayers of the truth. Fraud and deceit in the hall of science (p. 256), 1982.

I. Bruno and E. Didier, Benchmarking, 2013.
DOI : 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_170
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01301022

J. C. Burnham, The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol.263, issue.10, pp.1323-1329, 1990.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100023003

L. Butler and I. Mcallister, Metrics or Peer Review? Evaluating the 2001 UK Research Assessment Exercise in Political Science, Political Studies Review, vol.56, issue.6, pp.3-17, 2009.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1478-9299.2008.00167.x

J. M. Campanario, Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today--Part 1, Science Communication, vol.19, issue.3, pp.181-211, 1998.
DOI : 10.1177/1075547098019003002

D. E. Chubin and E. J. Hackett, Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy (p. 267), 1990.

D. V. Cicchetti, The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol.11, issue.01, pp.119-135, 1991.
DOI : 10.1007/BF02291413

D. V. Cicchetti and H. O. Conn, A statistical analysis of reviewer agreement and bias in evaluating medical abstracts, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, vol.49, issue.4, pp.373-383, 1976.

S. Cole, J. R. Cole, and G. A. Simon, Chance and consensus in peer review, Science, vol.214, issue.4523, pp.214-881, 1981.
DOI : 10.1126/science.7302566

D. Crane, The gate-keepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals, The American Sociologist, vol.2, issue.1, pp.195-201, 1967.

B. Cronin and C. R. Sugimoto, Beyond bibliometrics. Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact, 2014.

L. Debakey, The Scientific Journal, BMJ, vol.2, issue.6087, 1976.
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.2.6087.643

C. Donovan, Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact, Science and Public Policy, vol.34, issue.8, pp.538-542, 2007.
DOI : 10.3152/030234207X256529

M. G. Erikson and P. Erlandson, A taxonomy of motives to cite, Social Studies of Science, vol.69, issue.1, pp.625-637, 2014.
DOI : 10.2307/2094423

W. N. Espeland and M. L. Stevens, Commensuration as a social process. Annual review of sociology, pp.313-343, 1998.

G. Eysenbach, Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact, Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol.13, issue.4, p.123, 2011.
DOI : 10.2196/jmir.2012

B. Frey, Publishing as prostitution? ??? Choosing between one???s own ideas and academic success, Public Choice, vol.116, issue.12, pp.205-223, 2003.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-540-79247-5_45

N. D. Glenn, The journal article review process: Some proposals for change. The American Sociologist, pp.179-185, 1976.

F. Godlee, C. R. Gale, and C. N. Martyn, Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.237-240, 1998.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.280.3.237

K. Gunnarsdottir, Scientific Journal Publications, Social Studies of Science, vol.9, issue.1, pp.549-579, 2005.
DOI : 10.1177/0306312705052358

L. L. Hargens, Scholarly Consensus and Journal Rejection Rates, American Sociological Review, vol.53, issue.1, pp.139-151, 1988.
DOI : 10.2307/2095739

S. Harnad, Creative Disagreement, The Sciences, vol.19, issue.7, pp.18-20, 1979.
DOI : 10.1002/j.2326-1951.1979.tb01767.x

C. Helgesson and F. Muniesa, For What It???s Worth: An Introduction to Valuation Studies, Valuation Studies, vol.1, issue.1, pp.1-10, 2013.
DOI : 10.3384/vs.2001-5992.13111

D. Hicks and J. Wang, Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol.35, issue.3, pp.284-294, 2011.
DOI : 10.1002/asi.21458

S. Hirschauer, Editorial Judgments, Social Studies of Science, vol.9, issue.3, pp.71-103, 2010.
DOI : 10.1177/0306312709335405

F. J. Ingelfinger, Definition of 'sole contribution, New England Journal of Medicine, vol.281, issue.12, pp.676-677, 1969.

R. Jones, Rights, wrongs and referees, New Scientist, issue.890, pp.61-758, 1974.

F. G. Knox, No unanimity about anonymity, Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, vol.97, issue.1, pp.1-3, 1981.

D. A. Kronick, A history of scientific and technical periodicals: the origins and development of the scientific and technical press, 1665-1790, 1962.

M. Lamont, How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment (p, 2009.
DOI : 10.4159/9780674054158

M. Lamont, Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation, Annual Review of Sociology, vol.38, issue.1, pp.201-221, 2012.
DOI : 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120022

F. W. Lancester, Attitudes in academia toward feasibility and desirability of networked scholarly publishing, Library Trends, vol.43, issue.4, pp.741-752, 1995.

B. Latour and S. Woolgar, Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts, 1979.

B. Latour, Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, 1987.

C. J. Lee, C. R. Sugimoto, G. Zhang, and B. Cronin, Bias in peer review, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol.81, issue.7, pp.2-17, 2013.
DOI : 10.1002/asi.22784

R. P. Lowry, Communications to the editors, The American Sociologist, vol.2, issue.4, p.220, 1967.

S. Macdonald and J. Kam, Aardvark et al.: quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies, Journal of Information Science, vol.33, issue.6, pp.702-717, 2007.
DOI : 10.1177/0165551507077419

M. J. Mahoney, Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system, Cognitive Therapy and Research, vol.9, issue.2, pp.161-175, 1977.
DOI : 10.1007/BF01173636

R. K. Merton, Science and technology in a democratic order, Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, vol.1, pp.115-126, 1942.

P. P. Morgan, Anonymity in medical journals, Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol.131, issue.9, pp.1007-1008, 1984.

D. P. Peters and S. J. Ceci, Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol.19, issue.3, pp.187-195, 1982.
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.2.5912.216

D. Pontille and D. Torny, The controversial policies of journal ratings: evaluating social sciences and humanities, Research Evaluation, vol.19, issue.5, pp.347-360, 2010.
DOI : 10.3152/095820210X12809191250889
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00568746

D. Pontille and D. Torny, Behind the scenes of scientific articles: Defining categories of fraud and regulating cases. Revue d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique, pp.247-253, 2012.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00780561

D. Pontille and D. Torny, La manufacture de??l'??valuation??scientifique, R??seaux, vol.177, issue.1, pp.25-61, 2013.
DOI : 10.3917/res.177.0023

D. Pontille and D. Torny, The blind shall see! The question of anonymity in journal peer review, Ada: A Journal of Gender, pp.10-7264, 2014.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00981277

J. R. Porter, The Scientific Journal -300th Anniversary, Bacteriological Reviews, vol.28, issue.3, pp.211-230, 1964.

J. Priem and K. L. Costello, How and why scholars cite on Twitter, Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, pp.1-4, 2010.
DOI : 10.1002/meet.14504701201
URL : http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.452.1029

S. Schroter, N. Black, S. Evans, F. Godlee, L. Osorio et al., What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?, JRSM, vol.101, issue.10, pp.507-514, 2008.
DOI : 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062
URL : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586872

S. Shapin and S. Schaffer, Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life, 1985.

B. J. Shapiro, A culture of fact: England Ithaca and London, pp.1550-1720, 2000.

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.178-182, 2006.
DOI : 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178

B. W. Speck, Publication peer review: An annotated bibliography, 1993.

R. Van-noorden, Science publishing: The trouble with retractions, Nature, vol.478, issue.7367, pp.478-504, 2011.
DOI : 10.1038/478026a

S. Van-rooyen, F. Godlee, S. Evans, R. Smith, and N. Black, Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review, JAMA, vol.280, issue.3, pp.14-622, 1998.
DOI : 10.1001/jama.280.3.234

W. D. Ward and S. A. Goudsmit, Reviewer and author anonymity, Physics Today, vol.20, issue.1, p.12, 1967.
DOI : 10.1063/1.3034118

M. Ware and M. Monkman, Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community -an international study, 2008.

A. Weller, Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses (p. 342) Medford: Information Today, 2001.

A. W. Wilhite and E. A. Fong, Coercive citation in academic publishing Peer review and publication, Presidential address before the 70th annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Investigation, pp.542-543, 1978.

P. Wouters, The citation culture, 1999.

P. Wouters and R. Costas, Users, narcissism and control ? tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century, p.50, 2012.

H. A. Zuckerman and R. K. Merton, Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system, Minerva, vol.9, issue.1, pp.66-100, 1971.
DOI : 10.1007/BF01553188