Randomly selecting and evaluating papers for checklist questions

We randomly selected 10 papers from New York's 22 and manually added five more based on coverage of checklist questions. We focused on obtaining 'yes' answers from authors, as 'no' answers are hard to get wrong. We evaluated each paper manually and through keyword searches. The questions on the checklist were simple but added up across 15 papers. They included discussing limitations, ethical considerations, and reporting compensation for human subjects studies. The questions were non-controversial and a reading of the paper would determine whether the funding was disclosed or not.