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, pp.89-92, 1976.

L. D. Berg, Masculinism, Emplacement, and Positionality in Peer Review, The Professional Geographer, vol.53, issue.4, pp.511-521, 2001.
DOI : 10.1111/0033-0124.00301

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

G. Borts, Report of the managing editor, Papers and Proceedings of the Eighty-sixth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, pp.476-482, 1974.

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

C. Castañeda and L. Suchman, Robot visions. Social Studies of Science (online first : 12, 2013.

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, pp.373-383, 1976.

D. Crane, The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals, The American Sociologist, vol.2, issue.4, pp.195-201, 1967.

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

D. J. Haraway, Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective, Feminist Studies, vol.14, issue.3, pp.575-599, 1988.
DOI : 10.2307/3178066

D. J. Haraway, Modest Witness: Feminist Diffractions in Science Studies The Disunity of Science, pp.428-441, 1996.

R. Jones, Rights, wrongs and referees, New Scientist, vol.61, issue.890, pp.758-759, 1974.

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

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.

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

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

P. P. Morgan, Anonymity in medical journals, Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol.131, 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

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, pp.1550-1720, 2000.

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

A. Weller, Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses, 2001.

J. D. Wilson, Peer review and publication. Presidential address before the 70th annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Investigation, San Francisco, California, 30 April 1978., Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol.61, issue.6, pp.1697-1701, 1978.
DOI : 10.1172/JCI109091

H. 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

D. Pontille and D. Torny, The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review, Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media and Technology, issue.4, 2014.
URL : http://adanewmedia.org/blog/2014/04/21/issue4-pontilletorny/