| # | Title | Journal | Year | Citations |
|---|
| 1 | Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2016 | 801 |
| 2 | SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2019 | 638 |
| 3 | Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2016 | 135 |
| 4 | The limitations to our understanding of peer review | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2020 | 121 |
| 5 | Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2016 | 118 |
| 6 | A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus) | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2019 | 106 |
| 7 | A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2021 | 90 |
| 8 | Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2016 | 79 |
| 9 | What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2017 | 71 |
| 10 | Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2020 | 68 |
| 11 | The changing forms and expectations of peer review | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2018 | 64 |
| 12 | The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2020 | 60 |
| 13 | Beyond sex and gender difference in funding and reporting of health research | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2018 | 59 |
| 14 | Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2017 | 53 |
| 15 | Updating standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy: the development of STARD 2015 | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2016 | 48 |
| 16 | Plagiarism in submitted manuscripts: incidence, characteristics and optimization of screening—case study in a major specialty medical journal | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2016 | 45 |
| 17 | Reporting of sex and gender in randomized controlled trials in Canada: a cross-sectional methods study | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2017 | 44 |
| 18 | Improving the process of research ethics review | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2017 | 39 |
| 19 | The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2020 | 37 |
| 20 | Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2018 | 36 |
| 21 | Biomedical journal speed and efficiency: a cross-sectional pilot survey of author experiences | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2018 | 32 |
| 22 | Guidelines for open peer review implementation | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2019 | 32 |
| 23 | Propagation of errors in citation networks: a study involving the entire citation network of a widely cited paper published in, and later retracted from, the journal Nature | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2016 | 30 |
| 24 | Quantifying professionalism in peer review | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2020 | 30 |
| 25 | Protocol for the development of a CONSORT extension for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2018 | 28 |
| 26 | Good Practice for Conference Abstracts and Presentations: GPCAP | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2019 | 25 |
| 27 | Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2022 | 25 |
| 28 | Factors associated with online media attention to research: a cohort study of articles evaluating cancer treatments | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2017 | 24 |
| 29 | Replicability and replication in the humanities | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2019 | 24 |
| 30 | The high costs of getting ethical and site-specific approvals for multi-centre research | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2016 | 23 |
| 31 | Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2018 | 23 |
| 32 | Quality of reports of investigations of research integrity by academic institutions | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2019 | 23 |
| 33 | Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: a universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2017 | 22 |
| 34 | Value pluralism in research integrity | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2019 | 22 |
| 35 | Text recycling in health sciences research literature: a rhetorical perspective | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2017 | 21 |
| 36 | Evaluating implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines: the TRUST process for rating journal policies, procedures, and practices | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2021 | 21 |
| 37 | Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2016 | 20 |
| 38 | Researchers’ perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2019 | 20 |
| 39 | ACCORD guideline for reporting consensus-based methods in biomedical research and clinical practice: a study protocol | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2022 | 20 |
| 40 | Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2019 | 19 |
| 41 | Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 1) — a multi-actor qualitative study on success in science | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2021 | 19 |
| 42 | What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2022 | 19 |
| 43 | Concern noted: a descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2017 | 18 |
| 44 | ‘Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?’: observations on how peer review panels function | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2017 | 18 |
| 45 | Students’ and supervisors’ knowledge and attitudes regarding plagiarism and referencing | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2018 | 18 |
| 46 | Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2019 | 18 |
| 47 | Reproducible and transparent research practices in published neurology research | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2020 | 18 |
| 48 | Registration of randomized controlled trials in nursing journals | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2017 | 17 |
| 49 | Impact of US industry payment disclosure laws on payments to surgeons: a natural experiment | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2020 | 17 |
| 50 | Publishing computational research - a review of infrastructures for reproducible and transparent scholarly communication | Research Integrity and Peer Review | 2020 | 17 |
