Background: Scrutinizing evidence claims is a core process in synthesizing research and for facilitating evidence use for policymakers and practitioners. Checklists for assessing the quality of research largely focus on the quality of methods and reporting and less on justification of evidence claims. However, other domains, such as relevance and values, also need to be considered when making and drawing on evidence claims.

Objective: To identify the range of criteria for justifying evidence claims about research, drawing across disciplines, and how they have been established.

Methods: A scoping exercise was undertaken to identify and describe key literature. Iterative literature searches using OpenAlex, PubMed, and Web of Science. Systematic coding of the high-level criteria for justifying evidence claims. Sampling a range of eligible references for narrative synthesis and visual output into EPPI-Mapper software.

Results: The initial map describes 45 references, though it is planned to present an updated map. It includes commentaries and research from the disciplines of computer science, economics, education, evaluation, management, medicine, and psychology. They are described across key areas including: 1) domains of claim justification, such as research design, triangulation, validity and interpretation of research findings, relevance, and communication; 2) how criteria is developed, tested, or critiqued; and 3) focus towards particular study types and domains.

Conclusions: This study provides a first step in synthesizing a diverse literature about justifying evidence claims in research. It informs the different concepts that can be considered for judging and using evidence claims. It contributes to analysis-impact evaluations and systematic reviews in international development. Overall, it advances the knowledge and understanding of how evidence claims are justified and communicated.