B. Alberts, B. Hanson, and K. L. Kelner, Reviewing peer review, Science, vol.321, issue.5885, p.15, 2008.

S. Allesina, Modeling peer review: An agent-based approach, Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, vol.5, issue.2, pp.27-35, 2012.

M. Arns, Open access is tiring out peer reviewers, Nature, vol.515, issue.7528, p.467, 2014.

A. H. Auchincloss and A. V. Diez-roux, A new tool for epidemiology: The usefulness of dynamicagent models in understanding place effects on health, American Journal of Epidemiology, vol.168, issue.1, pp.1-8, 2008.

J. Bohannon, Who's afraid of peer review?, Science, vol.342, issue.6154, pp.60-65, 2013.

J. Bohannon, Google Scholar wins raves-But can it be trusted?, Science, vol.343, issue.6166, p.14, 2014.

E. Bonabeau, Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol.99, pp.7280-7287, 2002.

T. Brown, Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas, Sense About Science, 2004.

J. W. Cals, C. D. Mallen, L. G. Glynn, and D. Kotz, Should authors submit previous peer-review reports when submitting research papers? Views of general medical journal editors, The Annals of Family Medicine, vol.11, issue.2, pp.179-181, 2013.
DOI : 10.1370/afm.1448
URL : http://www.annfammed.org/content/11/2/179.full.pdf

J. Chhatwal and T. He, Economic evaluations with agent-based modelling: An introduction, PharmacoEconomics, vol.33, issue.5, pp.423-433, 2015.
DOI : 10.1007/s40273-015-0254-2
URL : https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40273-015-0254-2.pdf

T. E. Day, The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review, Research Policy, vol.44, issue.6, 2015.

J. M. Epstein, Generative social science: Studies in agent-based computational modeling, 2006.

J. D. Farmer and D. Foley, The economy needs agent-based modelling, Nature, vol.460, issue.7256, pp.685-686, 2009.
DOI : 10.1038/460685a
URL : https://zenodo.org/record/897777/files/article.pdf

S. Galea, M. Riddle, and G. A. Kaplan, Causal thinking and complex system approaches in epidemiology, International Journal of Epidemiology, vol.39, issue.1, pp.97-106, 2010.
DOI : 10.1093/ije/dyp296
URL : https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-pdf/39/1/97/2102145/dyp296.pdf

F. Gannon, The essential role of peer review, EMBO Reports, vol.2, issue.9, p.743, 2001.

T. Gura, Scientific publishing: Peer review, unmasked, Nature, issue.6878, pp.258-260, 2002.

D. M. Herron, Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review, Surgical Endoscopy, vol.26, issue.8, pp.2275-2280, 2012.

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, 2014.

D. Houry, S. Green, and M. Callaham, Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial, BMC Medical Education, vol.12, issue.1, p.83, 2012.
DOI : 10.1186/1472-6920-12-83
URL : https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1472-6920-12-83

M. Laakso, P. Welling, H. Bukvova, L. Nyman, B. Björk et al., The development of open access journal publishing from, PLoS ONE, vol.6, issue.6, p.20961, 1993.

B. Y. Lee, S. T. Brown, P. Cooley, J. J. Grefenstette, R. K. Zimmerman et al., Vaccination deep into a pandemic wave: Potential mechanisms for a ''third wave'' and the impact of vaccination, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol.39, issue.5, pp.21-29, 2010.

H. Look and S. Sparks, The value of UK HEIs contribution to the publishing process: Summary report, JISC Collections, 2010.

P. P. Maglio and P. L. Mabry, Agent-based models and systems science approaches to public health, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol.40, issue.3, pp.392-394, 2011.
DOI : 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.11.010
URL : http://europepmc.org/articles/pmc3061834?pdf=render

B. D. Marshall and S. Galea, Formalizing the role of agent-based modeling in causal inference and epidemiology, American Journal of Epidemiology, vol.181, issue.2, pp.92-99, 2015.

A. Mulligan, L. Hall, and E. Raphael, Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol.64, issue.1, pp.132-161, 2013.

A. Nandi, I. Megiddo, D. Prabhakaran, and R. Laxminarayan, An agent-based simulation modelling approach to extended cost-effectiveness analysis of health interventions, Lancet, vol.381, issue.13, pp.61350-61351, 2013.

D. Nicholas, A. Watkinson, H. R. Jamali, E. Herman, C. Tenopir et al., Peer review: Still king in the digital age, Learned Publishing, vol.28, issue.1, pp.15-21, 2015.

M. Paolucci and F. Grimaldo, Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: From junk support to elitism, Scientometrics, vol.99, issue.3, pp.663-688, 2014.

I. Park, M. W. Peacey, and M. R. Munafo, Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review, Nature, vol.506, issue.7486, pp.93-96, 2014.

J. Patel, Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: A case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials, BMC Medicine, vol.12, p.128, 2014.

D. Rennie and A. Flanagin, Research on peer review and biomedical publication: Furthering the quest to improve the quality of reporting, Review Rewards, issue.10, p.311, 2014.

N. A. Rigotti and R. B. Wallace, Using agent-based models to address ''wicked problems'' like tobacco use: A report from the institute of medicine using agent-based models to address tobacco use, Annals of Internal Medicine, vol.163, issue.6, pp.469-471, 2015.

, Scientometrics

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, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol.101, issue.10, pp.507-514, 2008.

K. Siler, K. Lee, and L. Bero, Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol.112, pp.360-365, 2015.

F. Squazzoni, The impact of agent-based models in the social sciences after 15 years of incursions, History of Economic Ideas, vol.18, issue.2, pp.197-234, 2010.

F. Squazzoni and C. Gandelli, Opening the black box of peer review: An agent-based model of scientist behaviour, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol.16, issue.2, p.3, 2013.

P. F. Stahel and E. E. Moore, Peer review for biomedical publications: We can improve the system, BMC Medicine, vol.12, p.179, 2014.

S. Thurner and R. Hanel, Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average, European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, vol.84, issue.4, pp.707-711, 2011.

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.23-27, 1999.

A. Vespignani, Modelling dynamical processes in complex socio-technical systems, Nature Physics, vol.8, issue.1, pp.32-39, 2012.

M. Ware, Peer review: An introduction and guide, 2013.

M. Ware and M. Mabe, The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, 2015.

J. Wilson, Peer review: The nuts and bolts. London: Sense About Science, 2012.

S. Allesina, Modeling peer review: An agent-based approach, Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, vol.5, issue.2, pp.27-35, 2012.

M. Arns, Open access is tiring out peer reviewers, Nature, vol.515, issue.7528, p.467, 2014.

F. Bianchi and F. Squazzoni, Is three better than one? Simulating the effect of reviewer selection and behavior on the quality and efficiency of peer review, Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference, pp.4081-4089, 2015.

J. Bohannon, Who's afraid of peer review?, Science, vol.342, issue.6154, pp.60-65, 2013.

E. Bonabeau, Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol.99, pp.7280-7287, 2002.

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 Medicine, 2016.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inserm-01332189

S. Galea, M. Riddle, and G. A. Kaplan, Causal thinking and complex system approaches in epidemiology, International Journal of Epidemiology, vol.39, issue.1, pp.97-106, 2010.

T. Gura, Scientific publishing: Peer review, unmasked, Nature, issue.6878, pp.258-260, 2002.

D. Herron, Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review, Surgical Endoscopy, vol.26, issue.8, pp.2275-2280, 2012.

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, 2014.

D. Houry, S. Green, and M. Callaham, Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial, BMC Medical Education, vol.12, issue.1, p.83, 2012.

J. Hunter, Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversation, Frontiers in computational neuroscience, vol.6, p.63, 2012.

C. Jennings, Quality and value: the true purpose of peer review. What you can't measure, you can't manage: the need for quantitative indicators in peer review, Journal, S. W, 2006.

M. Kovanis, R. Porcher, P. Ravaud, and L. Trinquart, Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data, Scientometrics, vol.106, issue.2, pp.695-715, 2016.

M. Kovanis, R. Porcher, P. Ravaud, and L. Trinquart, The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise, PLoS ONE, vol.11, issue.11, 2016.

B. D. Marshall and S. Galea, Formalizing the role of agent-based modeling in causal inference and epidemiology, American Journal of Epidemiology, vol.181, issue.2, pp.92-99, 2015.

D. Nicholas, A. Watkinson, H. R. Jamali, E. Herman, C. Tenopir et al., Peer review: Still king in the digital age, Encyclopedia of mathematics, vol.28, pp.15-21, 2001.

M. Paolucci and F. Grimaldo, Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: From junk support to elitism, Scientometrics, vol.99, issue.3, pp.663-688, 2014.

I. U. Park, M. W. Peacey, and M. R. Munafo, Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review, Nature, vol.506, issue.7486, pp.93-96, 2014.

J. Patel, Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: A case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials, BMC Medicine, 2014.

U. Pöschl, Multi-stage open peer review: Scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation, Frontiers in computational neuroscience, vol.6, p.33, 2012.

R. Ray and J. Schmitt, No-vacation nation USA-a comparison of leave and holiday in OECD countries, IEEE Policy Brief, p.3, 2007.

D. Rennie, Let's make peer review scientific, Nature, vol.535, issue.7610, pp.31-33, 2016.

S. Righi and K. Takács, The miracle of peer review and development in science: An agent-based model, Scientometrics, 2017.

M. Robertson, Q&A: Re-review opt-out and painless publishing, BMC Biology, vol.11, p.18, 2013.

, Peer review: The nuts and bolts. London: Sense About Science, Sense About Science, 2012.

K. Siler, K. Lee, and L. Bero, Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol.112, issue.2, pp.360-365, 2015.

F. Squazzoni and C. Gandelli, Opening the black box of peer review: An agent-based model of scientist behaviour, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol.16, issue.2, p.3, 2013.

P. F. Stahel and E. E. Moore, Peer review for biomedical publications: We can improve the system, BMC Medicine, 2014.

S. Thurner and R. Hanel, Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average, The European Physical Journal B, vol.84, issue.4, pp.707-711, 2011.

R. Van-noorden, S. Van-rooyen, F. Godlee, S. Evans, N. Black et al., Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial, Nature, vol.494, issue.7436, pp.23-27, 1999.

A. Vespignani, Modelling dynamical processes in complex socio-technical systems, Nat Phys, vol.8, issue.1, pp.32-39, 2012.

R. Walker, . Rocha-da, and P. Silva, Emerging trends in peer review: A survey, Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol.9, p.169, 2015.

R. Walker, . Rocha-da, and P. Silva, Emerging trends in peer review: A survey, Frontiers Neurosci, vol.9, p.169, 2015.

M. Ware, Peer review: An introduction and guide. Bristol: Publishing Research Consortium, Scientometrics References Alberts, B, vol.340, issue.6134, pp.787-787, 2013.

B. Alberts, B. Hanson, and K. L. Kelner, Reviewing peer review, 2008.

, Science, vol.321, issue.5885, p.15

S. Allesina, Modeling peer review: an agent-based approach, Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, vol.5, issue.2, pp.27-35, 2012.

M. Arns, Open access is tiring out peer reviewers, Nature, vol.515, issue.7528, p.467, 2014.

A. H. Auchincloss and A. V. Diez-roux, A New Tool for Epidemiology: The Usefulness of Dynamic-Agent Models in Understanding Place Effects on Health, Am J Epidemiol, vol.168, issue.1, pp.1-8, 2008.

M. Bill, Gates foundation open access policy, 2015.

B. C. Björk, A. Roos, and M. Lauri, Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different Open Access options, ELPUB2008, 2008.

R. 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.

J. Bohannon, Who's Afraid of Peer Review?, Science, vol.342, issue.6154, pp.60-65, 2013.

J. Bohannon, Google Scholar Wins Raves-But Can It Be Trusted?, Science, vol.343, issue.6166, p.14, 2014.

E. Bonabeau, Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol.99, 2002.

, , pp.7280-7287

M. Breuning, J. Backstrom, J. Brannon, B. Gross, and M. Widmeier, Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review their Peers, Work. PS: Political Science & Politics, vol.48, issue.4, pp.595-600, 2015.

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 Medicine, vol.14, issue.85, 2016.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inserm-01332189

E. Callaway, Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions, Nature, 2015.

F. Cat, M. Adam, and O. Ivan, Publishing: The peer-review scam, References, vol.125, 2014.

, Nature, vol.515, pp.480-482

J. Chhatwal and T. He, Economic Evaluations with Agent-Based Modelling: An Introduction, PharmacoEconomics, vol.33, issue.5, pp.423-433, 2015.

. //dx,

A. Cohen, S. Pattanaik, P. Kumar, R. R. Bies, A. De-boer et al., Organised crime against the academic peer review system, Br J Clin Pharmacol, vol.81, pp.1012-1017, 2016.

A. Csiszar, Peer review: Troubled from the start, Nature, vol.532, pp.306-308, 2016.

T. Culley, Want to peer review? Top 10 tips to get noticed by editors, Publons, 2017.

S. Dallmeier-tiessen, R. Darby, J. Hyppoelae, P. Igo-kemenes, D. Kahn et al., First results of the SOAP project, Open access publishing in 2010, 2010.

P. Davis, Are journals lacking for reviewers?, The Scholarly Kitchen, 2016.

T. E. Day, The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review, Research Policy, vol.44, issue.6, pp.1266-1270, 2015.

M. Enserink, E.U. urged to free all scientific papers by 2020, Science, 2016.

J. M. Epstein, Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling, 2006.

J. D. Farmer and D. Foley, The economy needs agent-based modelling, 2009.
DOI : 10.1038/460685a
URL : https://zenodo.org/record/897777/files/article.pdf

, Nature, vol.460, issue.7256, pp.685-686

E. Garfield, The history and meaning of the journal impact factor, 2006.

, Peer review: A global view, JAMA, vol.295, issue.1, pp.90-93, 2016.

T. Gura, Scientific publishing: Peer review, unmasked, Nature, vol.416, issue.6878, pp.258-260, 2002.

M. Helmer, M. Schottdorf, A. Neef, and D. Battaglia, Gender bias in scholarly peer review, 2017.
DOI : 10.7554/elife.21718
URL : https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.21718

D. M. Herron, Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review, 2012.

, Surgical Endoscopy, vol.26, issue.8, pp.2275-2280

, BMJ, vol.349

J. Hunter, Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversaReferences 127, 2012.
DOI : 10.3389/fncom.2012.00063
URL : https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2012.00063/pdf

, Frontiers in computational neuroscience, vol.6, p.63

M. Kovanis, R. Porcher, P. Ravaud, and L. Trinquart, The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise, PLOS ONE, vol.11, issue.11, p.166387, 2016.

H. Look and S. Sparks, The value of UK HEIs contribution to the publishing process: Summary report, 2010.

B. D. Marshall and S. Galea, Formalizing the role of agent-based modeling in causal inference and epidemiology, Am J Epidemiol, vol.181, issue.2, pp.92-99, 2015.

A. C. Martins, Modeling scientific agents for a better science, vol.13, pp.519-533, 2010.

G. Nicolis and C. Rouvas-nicolis, Complex Systems. Scolarpedia, vol.2, p.1473, 2007.

I. Oransky and A. Marcus, Is the peer-review system sustainable?, 2016.

, STAT

B. Osterath, Peer-review 'heroes' do lion's share of work, Nature News, 2016.

M. Paolucci and F. Grimaldo, Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism, Scientometrics, vol.99, issue.3, pp.663-688, 2014.

I. Park, M. W. Peacey, and M. R. Munafo, Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review, 2014.

, Nature, vol.506, issue.7486, pp.93-96

P. Peters and J. Ceci, Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol.5, issue.2, pp.187-195, 1982.

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, vol.4, 2014.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00981277

U. Pöschl, Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and selfregulation, Frontiers in computational neuroscience, vol.6, p.33, 2012.

R. B. Primack, M. Maron, and A. Campos-arceiz, Who are our reviewers and how do they review? The profile and work of Biological Conservation reviewers, Biological Conservation, 2016.

D. Rennie, Editorial peer review: its development and rationale. Peer review in health sciences, vol.2, pp.1-13, 2003.

D. Rennie, Let's make peer review scientific, Review rewards, vol.535, issue.7610, pp.31-33, 2014.

N. A. Rigotti and R. B. Wallace, Like Tobacco Use: A Report From the Institute of MedicineUsing Agent-Based Models to Address Tobacco Use, Ann Intern Med, vol.163, issue.6, pp.469-471, 2015.

P. J. Roebber and D. M. Schultz, Peer Review, Program Officers and Science Funding, PLOS ONE, vol.6, issue.4, p.18680, 2011.

S. Schroter, N. Black, S. Evans, J. Carpenter, F. Godlee et al., Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial, BMJ, vol.328, issue.7441, p.673, 2004.

, Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas: Sense About Science, Sense About Science, 2004.

, Peer review: The nuts and bolts: Sense About Science, Sense About Science, 2012.

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.

P. Sorokowski, K. Emanuel, S. Agnieszka, and P. Katarzyna, , 2017.

, Predatory journals recruit fake editor, Nature, vol.543, pp.481-483

R. Spier, The history of the peer-review process, Trends in Biotechnology, vol.20, issue.8, pp.1985-1991, 2002.

F. Squazzoni and C. Gandelli, Opening the black box of peer review: An agent-based model of scientist behaviour, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol.16, issue.2, p.3, 2013.

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

P. Subert, Open access. The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series, 2012.

S. Thurner and R. Hanel, Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average, The European Physical Journal B, vol.84, issue.4, pp.707-711, 2011.

R. Van-noorden, R. Van-noorden, S. Van-rooyen, F. Godlee, S. Evans et al., Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers, Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial, vol.494, p.161, 1999.

, BMJ, vol.318, issue.7175, pp.23-27

R. Walker, . Rocha-da, and P. Silva, Emerging trends in peer review: a survey, Frontiers Neurosci, vol.9, p.169, 2015.

M. Ware and M. Mabe, The Hague, The Netherlands: International Association of Scientific, The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, 2015.

V. Warne, Rewarding reviewers -sense or sensibility? A Wiley study References 131 explained, References 1. Lerchenmueller MJ, Sorenson O. Author Disambiguation in PubMed: Evidence on the Precision and Recall of Author-ity among NIH-Funded Scientists, vol.29, p.158731, 2016.

C. Schulz, A. Mazloumian, A. M. Petersen, O. Penner, and D. Helbing, Exploiting citation networks for large-scale author name disambiguation, EPJ Data Science, vol.3, issue.1, pp.1-14, 2014.

A. Mulligan, L. Hall, and E. Raphael, Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers, J Assoc Inf Sci Technol, vol.64, issue.1, pp.132-61, 2013.

H. Look and S. Sparks, The value of UK HEIs contribution to the publishing process: Summary report: Rightscom Ltd for JISC Collections, 2010.

R. Ray and J. Schmitt, No-vacation nation USA -a comparison of leave and holiday in OECD countries, EEE Policy Brief, vol.3, 2007.

, A decade in numbers, Nat Mater, vol.11, issue.9, pp.743-747, 2012.