qualitative research guidelines pdf

• Subscribe to journal Subscribe
• Get new issue alerts Get alerts

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research

A synthesis of recommendations.

O’Brien, Bridget C. PhD; Harris, Ilene B. PhD; Beckman, Thomas J. MD; Reed, Darcy A. MD, MPH; Cook, David A. MD, MHPE

Dr. O’Brien is assistant professor, Department of Medicine and Office of Research and Development in Medical Education, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, California.

Dr. Harris is professor and head, Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

Dr. Beckman is professor of medicine and medical education, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.

Dr. Reed is associate professor of medicine and medical education, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.

Dr. Cook is associate director, Mayo Clinic Online Learning, research chair, Mayo Multidisciplinary Simulation Center, and professor of medicine and medical education, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.

Funding/Support: This study was funded in part by a research review grant from the Society for Directors of Research in Medical Education.

Other disclosures: None reported.

Ethical approval: Reported as not applicable.

Disclaimer: The funding agency had no role in the study design, analysis, interpretation, writing of the manuscript, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Supplemental digital content for this article is available at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 .

Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. O’Brien, Office of Research and Development in Medical Education, UCSF School of Medicine, Box 3202, 1855 Folsom St., Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94143-3202; e-mail: [email protected] .

Purpose 

Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.

Method 

The authors identified guidelines, reporting standards, and critical appraisal criteria for qualitative research by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Google through July 2013; reviewing the reference lists of retrieved sources; and contacting experts. Specifically, two authors reviewed a sample of sources to generate an initial set of items that were potentially important in reporting qualitative research. Through an iterative process of reviewing sources, modifying the set of items, and coding all sources for items, the authors prepared a near-final list of items and descriptions and sent this list to five external reviewers for feedback. The final items and descriptions included in the reporting standards reflect this feedback.

Results 

The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) consists of 21 items. The authors define and explain key elements of each item and provide examples from recently published articles to illustrate ways in which the standards can be met.

Conclusions 

The SRQR aims to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative research by providing clear standards for reporting qualitative research. These standards will assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing study findings.

Qualitative research contributes to the literature in many disciplines by describing, interpreting, and generating theories about social interactions and individual experiences as they occur in natural, rather than experimental, situations. 1–3 Some recent examples include studies of professional dilemmas, 4 medical students’ early experiences of workplace learning, 5 patients’ experiences of disease and interventions, 6–8 and patients’ perspectives about incident disclosures. 9 The purpose of qualitative research is to understand the perspectives/experiences of individuals or groups and the contexts in which these perspectives or experiences are situated. 1 , 2 , 10

Qualitative research is increasingly common and valued in the medical and medical education literature. 1 , 10–13 However, the quality of such research can be difficult to evaluate because of incomplete reporting of key elements. 14 , 15 Quality is multifaceted and includes consideration of the importance of the research question, the rigor of the research methods, the appropriateness and salience of the inferences, and the clarity and completeness of reporting. 16 , 17 Although there is much debate about standards for methodological rigor in qualitative research, 13 , 14 , 18–20 there is widespread agreement about the need for clear and complete reporting. 14 , 21 , 22 Optimal reporting would enable editors, reviewers, other researchers, and practitioners to critically appraise qualitative studies and apply and synthesize the results. One important step in improving the quality of reporting is to formulate and define clear reporting standards.

Authors have proposed guidelines for the quality of qualitative research, including those in the fields of medical education, 23–25 clinical and health services research, 26–28 and general education research. 29 , 30 Yet in nearly all cases, the authors do not describe how the guidelines were created, and often fail to distinguish reporting quality from the other facets of quality (e.g., the research question or methods). Several authors suggest standards for reporting qualitative research, 15 , 20 , 29–33 but their articles focus on a subset of qualitative data collection methods (e.g., interviews), fail to explain how the authors developed the reporting criteria, narrowly construe qualitative research (e.g., thematic analysis) in ways that may exclude other approaches, and/or lack specific examples to help others see how the standards might be achieved. Thus, there remains a compelling need for defensible and broadly applicable standards for reporting qualitative research.

We designed and carried out the present study to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research through a rigorous synthesis of published articles and expert recommendations.

We formulated standards for reporting qualitative research by using a rigorous and systematic approach in which we reviewed previously proposed recommendations by experts in qualitative methods. Our research team consisted of two PhD researchers and one physician with formal training and experience in qualitative methods, and two physicians with experience, but no formal training, in qualitative methods.

We first identified previously proposed recommendations by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Google using combinations of terms such as “qualitative methods,” “qualitative research,” “qualitative guidelines,” “qualitative standards,” and “critical appraisal” and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved sources, reviewing the Equator Network, 22 and contacting experts. We conducted our first search in January 2007 and our last search in July 2013. Most recommendations were published in peer-reviewed journals, but some were available only on the Internet, and one was an interim draft from a national organization. We report the full set of the 40 sources reviewed in Supplemental Digital Appendix 1, found at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 .

Two of us (B.O., I.H.) reviewed an initial sample of sources to generate a comprehensive list of items that were potentially important in reporting qualitative research (Draft A). All of us then worked in pairs to review all sources and code the presence or absence of each item in a given source. From Draft A, we then distilled a shorter list (Draft B) by identifying core concepts and combining related items, taking into account the number of times each item appeared in these sources. We then compared the items in Draft B with material in the original sources to check for missing concepts, modify accordingly, and add explanatory definitions to create a prefinal list of items (Draft C).

We circulated Draft C to five experienced qualitative researchers (see the acknowledgments) for review. We asked them to note any omitted or redundant items and to suggest improvements to the wording to enhance clarity and relevance across a broad spectrum of qualitative inquiry. In response to their reviews, we consolidated some items and made minor revisions to the wording of labels and definitions to create the final set of reporting standards—the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR)—summarized in Table 1 .

To explicate how the final set of standards reflect the material in the original sources, two of us (B.O., D.A.C.) selected by consensus the 25 most complete sources of recommendations and identified which standards reflected the concepts found in each original source (see Table 2 ).

The SRQR is a list of 21 items that we consider essential for complete, transparent reporting of qualitative research (see Table 1 ). As explained above, we developed these items through a rigorous synthesis of prior recommendations and concepts from published sources (see Table 2 ; see also Supplemental Digital Appendix 1, found at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 ) and expert review. These 21 items provide a framework and recommendations for reporting qualitative studies. Given the wide range of qualitative approaches and methodologies, we attempted to select items with broad relevance.

The SRQR includes the article’s title and abstract (items 1 and 2); problem formulation and research question (items 3 and 4); research design and methods of data collection and analysis (items 5 through 15); results, interpretation, discussion, and integration (items 16 through 19); and other information (items 20 and 21). Supplemental Digital Appendix 2, found at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 , contains a detailed explanation of each item, along with examples from recently published qualitative studies. Below, we briefly describe the standards, with a particular focus on those unique to qualitative research.

Titles, abstracts, and introductory material. Reporting standards for titles, abstracts, and introductory material (problem formulation, research question) in qualitative research are very similar to those for quantitative research, except that the results reported in the abstract are narrative rather than numerical, and authors rarely present a specific hypothesis. 29 , 30

Research design and methods. Reporting on research design and methods of data collection and analysis highlights several distinctive features of qualitative research. Many of the criteria we reviewed focus not only on identifying and describing all aspects of the methods (e.g., approach, researcher characteristics and role, sampling strategy, context, data collection and analysis) but also on justifying each choice. 13 , 14 This ensures that authors make their assumptions and decisions transparent to readers. This standard is less commonly expected in quantitative research, perhaps because most quantitative researchers share positivist assumptions and generally agree about standards for rigor of various study designs and sampling techniques. 14 Just as quantitative reporting standards encourage authors to describe how they implemented methods such as randomization and measurement validity, several qualitative reporting criteria recommend that authors describe how they implemented a presumably familiar technique in their study rather than simply mentioning the technique. 10 , 14 , 32 For example, authors often state that data collection occurred until saturation, with no mention of how they defined and recognized saturation. Similarly, authors often mention an “iterative process,” with minimal description of the nature of the iterations. The SRQR emphasizes the importance of explaining and elaborating on these important processes. Nearly all of the original sources recommended describing the characteristics and role of the researcher (i.e., reflexivity). Members of the research team often form relationships with participants, and analytic processes are highly interpretive in most qualitative research. Therefore, reviewers and readers must understand how these relationships and the researchers’ perspectives and assumptions influenced data collection and interpretation. 15 , 23 , 26 , 34

Results. Reporting of qualitative research results should identify the main analytic findings. Often, these findings involve interpretation and contextualization, which represent a departure from the tradition in quantitative studies of objectively reporting results. The presentation of results often varies with the specific qualitative approach and methodology; thus, rigid rules for reporting qualitative findings are inappropriate. However, authors should provide evidence (e.g., examples, quotes, or text excerpts) to substantiate the main analytic findings. 20 , 29

Discussion. The discussion of qualitative results will generally include connections to existing literature and/or theoretical or conceptual frameworks, the scope and boundaries of the results (transferability), and study limitations. 10–12 , 28 In some qualitative traditions, the results and discussion may not have distinct boundaries; we recommend that authors include the substance of each item regardless of the section in which it appears.

The purpose of the SRQR is to improve the quality of reporting of qualitative research studies. We hope that these 21 recommended reporting standards will assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing study findings. As with other reporting guidelines, 35–37 we anticipate that the SRQR will evolve as it is applied and evaluated in practice. We welcome suggestions for refinement.

Qualitative studies explore “how?” and “why?” questions related to social or human problems or phenomena. 10 , 38 Purposes of qualitative studies include understanding meaning from participants’ perspectives (How do they interpret or make sense of an event, situation, or action?); understanding the nature and influence of the context surrounding events or actions; generating theories about new or poorly understood events, situations, or actions; and understanding the processes that led to a desired (or undesired) outcome. 38 Many different approaches (e.g., ethnography, phenomenology, discourse analysis, case study, grounded theory) and methodologies (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observation, analysis of documents) may be used in qualitative research, each with its own assumptions and traditions. 1 , 2 A strength of many qualitative approaches and methodologies is the opportunity for flexibility and adaptability throughout the data collection and analysis process. We endeavored to maintain that flexibility by intentionally defining items to avoid favoring one approach or method over others. As such, we trust that the SRQR will support all approaches and methods of qualitative research by making reports more explicit and transparent, while still allowing investigators the flexibility to use the study design and reporting format most appropriate to their study. It may be helpful, in the future, to develop approach-specific extensions of the SRQR, as has been done for guidelines in quantitative research (e.g., the CONSORT extensions). 37

Limitations, strengths, and boundaries

We deliberately avoided recommendations that define methodological rigor, and therefore it would be inappropriate to use the SRQR to judge the quality of research methods and findings. Many of the original sources from which we derived the SRQR were intended as criteria for methodological rigor or critical appraisal rather than reporting; for these, we inferred the information that would be needed to evaluate the criterion. Occasionally, we found conflicting recommendations in the literature (e.g., recommending specific techniques such as multiple coders or member checking to demonstrate trustworthiness); we resolved these conflicting recommendations through selection of the most frequent recommendations and by consensus among ourselves.

Some qualitative researchers have described the limitations of checklists as a means to improve methodological rigor. 13 We nonetheless believe that a checklist for reporting standards will help to enhance the transparency of qualitative research studies and thereby advance the field. 29 , 39

Strengths of this work include the grounding in previously published criteria, the diversity of experience and perspectives among us, and critical review by experts in three countries.

Implications and application

Similar to other reporting guidelines, 35–37 the SRQR may be viewed as a starting point for defining reporting standards in qualitative research. Although our personal experience lies in health professions education, the SRQR is based on sources originating in diverse health care and non-health-care fields. We intentionally crafted the SRQR to include various paradigms, approaches, and methodologies used in qualitative research. The elaborations offered in Supplemental Digital Appendix 2 (see https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 ) should provide sufficient description and examples to enable both novice and experienced researchers to use these standards. Thus, the SRQR should apply broadly across disciplines, methodologies, topics, study participants, and users.

The SRQR items reflect information essential for inclusion in a qualitative research report, but should not be viewed as prescribing a rigid format or standardized content. Individual study needs, author preferences, and journal requirements may necessitate a different sequence or organization than that shown in Table 1 . Journal word restrictions may prevent a full exposition of each item, and the relative importance of a given item will vary by study. Thus, although all 21 standards would ideally be reflected in any given report, authors should prioritize attention to those items that are most relevant to the given study, findings, context, and readership.

Application of the SRQR need not be limited to the writing phase of a given study. These standards can assist researchers in planning qualitative studies and in the careful documentation of processes and decisions made throughout the study. By considering these recommendations early on, researchers may be more likely to identify the paradigm and approach most appropriate to their research, consider and use strategies for ensuring trustworthiness, and keep track of procedures and decisions.

Journal editors can facilitate the review process by providing the SRQR to reviewers and applying its standards, thus establishing more explicit expectations for qualitative studies. Although the recommendations do not address or advocate specific approaches, methods, or quality standards, they do help reviewers identify information that is missing from manuscripts.

As authors and editors apply the SRQR, readers will have more complete information about a given study, thus facilitating judgments about the trustworthiness, relevance, and transferability of findings to their own context and/or to related literature. Complete reporting will also facilitate meaningful synthesis of qualitative results across studies. 40 We anticipate that such transparency will, over time, help to identify previously unappreciated gaps in the rigor and relevance of research findings. Investigators, editors, and educators can then work to remedy these deficiencies and, thereby, enhance the overall quality of qualitative research.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Margaret Bearman, PhD, Calvin Chou, MD, PhD, Karen Hauer, MD, Ayelet Kuper, MD, DPhil, Arianne Teherani, PhD, and participants in the UCSF weekly educational scholarship works-in-progress group (ESCape) for critically reviewing the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.

References Cited Only in Table 2

Supplemental digital content.

• ACADMED_89_9_2014_05_22_OBRIEN_1301196_SDC1.pdf; [PDF] (385 KB)
• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

The distinctions between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework, the problem and power of professionalism: a critical analysis of medical..., common qualitative methodologies and research designs in health professions..., the positivism paradigm of research, boyer's expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessing....

Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research

• Courses & events
• Librarian Network
• Search for reporting guidelines

Use your browser's Back button to return to your search results

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) : a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups

Reporting guidelines for main study types

Translations

Some reporting guidelines are also available in languages other than English. Find out more in our Translations section .

• About the Library

For information about Library scope and content, identification of reporting guidelines and inclusion/exclusion criteria please visit About the Library .

Visit our Help page for information about searching for reporting guidelines and for general information about using our website.

Library index

• What is a reporting guideline?
• Browse reporting guidelines by specialty
• Reporting guidelines under development
• Translations of reporting guidelines
• EQUATOR Network reporting guideline manual
• Reporting guidelines for animal research
• Guidance on scientific writing
• Guidance developed by editorial groups
• Research funders’ guidance on reporting requirements
• Professional medical writing support
• Research ethics, publication ethics and good practice guidelines
• Links to other resources

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2021
• Volume 31 , pages 679–689, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Drishti Yadav   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-0323 1  

88k Accesses

35 Citations

72 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: a review and best-practice recommendations, systematic review or scoping review guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)

To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.

Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).

In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.

The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect.  Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect.  Improving Quality: Strategies . Section  How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect.  Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .

For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.

From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.

Figure  1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.

Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.

Improving Quality: Strategies

Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .

It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.

Figure  2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:

The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).

Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.

Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:

In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.

There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).

Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.

Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.

It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.

Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.

To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.

Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.

Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.

Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84 (1), 7120.

Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.

Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.

Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15

McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.

Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.

Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.

Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.

Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.

Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.

Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative research
• Evaluative criteria
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• French Abstracts
• Portuguese Abstracts
• Spanish Abstracts
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Journal for Quality in Health Care
• About the International Society for Quality in Health Care
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Contact ISQua
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Basic definitions, coreq: content and rationale (see tables  1 ).

• < Previous

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Allison Tong, Peter Sainsbury, Jonathan Craig, Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups, International Journal for Quality in Health Care , Volume 19, Issue 6, December 2007, Pages 349–357, https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design.

To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (indepth interviews and focus groups).

We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed.

Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting.

The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers in health care. Poorly designed studies and inadequate reporting can lead to inappropriate application of qualitative research in decision-making, health care, health policy and future research.

Formal reporting guidelines have been developed for randomized controlled trials (CONSORT) [ 1 ], diagnostic test studies (STARD), meta-analysis of RCTs (QUOROM) [ 2 ], observational studies (STROBE) [ 3 ] and meta-analyses of observational studies (MOOSE) [ 4 ]. These aim to improve the quality of reporting these study types and allow readers to better understand the design, conduct, analysis and findings of published studies. This process allows users of published research to be more fuller informed when they critically appraise studies relevant to each checklist and decide upon applicability of research findings to their local settings. Empiric studies have shown that the use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvements in the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials [ 5 ]. Systematic reviews of qualitative research almost always show that key aspects of study design are not reported, and so there is a clear need for a CONSORT-equivalent for qualitative research [ 6 ].

The Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) do not provide reporting guidelines for qualitative studies. Of all the mainstream biomedical journals (Fig.  1 ), only the British Medical Journal (BMJ) has criteria for reviewing qualitative research. However, the guidelines for authors specifically record that the checklist is not routinely used. In addition, the checklist is not comprehensive and does not provide specific guidance to assess some of the criteria. Although checklists for critical appraisal are available for qualitative research, there is no widely endorsed reporting framework for any type of qualitative research [ 7 ].

Development of the COREQ Checklist. *References [ 26 , 27 ], † References [ 6 , 28–32 ], ‡ Author and reviewer guidelines provided by BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, NEJM.

We have developed a formal reporting checklist for in-depth interviews and focus groups, the most common methods for data collection in qualitative health research. These two methods are particularly useful for eliciting patient and consumer priorities and needs to improve the quality of health care [ 8 ]. The checklist aims to promote complete and transparent reporting among researchers and indirectly improve the rigor, comprehensiveness and credibility of interview and focus-group studies.

Qualitative studies use non-quantitative methods to contribute new knowledge and to provide new perspectives in health care. Although qualitative research encompasses a broad range of study methods, most qualitative research publications in health care describe the use of interviews and focus groups [ 8 ].

In-depth and semi-structured interviews explore the experiences of participants and the meanings they attribute to them. Researchers encourage participants to talk about issues pertinent to the research question by asking open-ended questions, usually in one-to-one interviews. The interviewer might re-word, re-order or clarify the questions to further investigate topics introduced by the respondent. In qualitative health research, in-depth interviews are often used to study the experiences and meanings of disease, and to explore personal and sensitive themes. They can also help to identify potentially modifiable factors for improving health care [ 9 ].

Focus groups

Focus groups are semi-structured discussions with groups of 4–12 people that aim to explore a specific set of issues [ 10 ]. Moderators often commence the focus group by asking broad questions about the topic of interest, before asking the focal questions. Although participants individually answer the facilitator's questions, they are encouraged to talk and interact with each other [ 11 ]. This technique is built on the notion that the group interaction encourages respondents to explore and clarify individual and shared perspectives [ 12 ]. Focus groups are used to explore views on health issues, programs, interventions and research.

Development of a checklist

Search strategy.

We performed a comprehensive search for published checklists used to assess or review qualitative studies, and guidelines for reporting qualitative studies in: Medline (1966—Week 1 April 2006), CINAHL (1982—Week 3 April 2006), Cochrane and Campbell protocols, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications. We identified the terms used to index the relevant articles already in our possession and performed a broad search using those search terms. The electronic databases were searched using terms and text words for research (standards), health services research (standards) and qualitative studies (evaluation). Duplicate checklists and detailed instructions for conducting and analysing qualitative studies were excluded.

Data extraction

From each of the included publications, we extracted all criteria for assessing or reporting qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. We recorded the frequency of each item across all the publications. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. (see Tables  2–4 )

Within each domain we simplified all relevant items by removing duplicates and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined, not specific to qualitative research, or impractical to assess. Where necessary, the remaining items were rephrased for clarity. Based upon consensus among the authors, two new items that were considered relevant for reporting qualitative research were added. The two new items were identifying the authors who conducted the interview or focus group and reporting the presence of non-participants during the interview or focus group. The COREQ checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies consists of 32 criteria, with a descriptor to supplement each item (Table  1 ).

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist

Items included in 22 published checklists: Research team and reflexivity domain

a Other publications, b Systematic review of qualitative studies; BMJ, British Medical Journal—editor's checklist for appraising qualitative research); •, item included in the checklist.

Items included in 22 published checklists: Study design

a Other publications, b Systematic review of qualitative studies; BMJ, British Medical Journal—editor's checklist for appraising qualitative research; •, item included in the checklist.

Items included in 22 published checklists: Analysis and reporting

a Other publications, b Systematic review of qualitative studies; BMJ, British Medical Journal—editor's checklist for appraising qualitative research, •, item included in the checklist.

Domain 1: research team and reflexivity

(i) Personal characteristics: Qualitative researchers closely engage with the research process and participants and are therefore unable to completely avoid personal bias. Instead researchers should recognize and clarify for readers their identity, credentials, occupation, gender, experience and training. Subsequently this improves the credibility of the findings by giving readers the ability to assess how these factors might have influenced the researchers' observations and interpretations [ 13–15 ].

(ii) Relationship with participants: The relationship and extent of interaction between the researcher and their participants should be described as it can have an effect on the participants' responses and also on the researchers' understanding of the phenomena [ 16 ]. For example, a clinician–researcher may have a deep understanding of patients' issues but their involvement in patient care may inhibit frank discussion with patient–participants when patients believe that their responses will affect their treatment. For transparency, the investigator should identify and state their assumptions and personal interests in the research topic.

Domain 2: study design

(i) Theoretical framework: Researchers should clarify the theoretical frameworks underpinning their study so readers can understand how the researchers explored their research questions and aims. Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research include: grounded theory, to build theories from the data; ethnography, to understand the culture of groups with shared characteristics; phenomenology, to describe the meaning and significance of experiences; discourse analysis, to analyse linguistic expression; and content analysis, to systematically organize data into a structured format [ 10 ].

(ii) Participant selection: Researchers should report how participants were selected. Usually purposive sampling is used which involves selecting participants who share particular characteristics and have the potential to provide rich, relevant and diverse data pertinent to the research question [ 13 , 17 ]. Convenience sampling is less optimal because it may fail to capture important perspectives from difficult-to-reach people [ 16 ]. Rigorous attempts to recruit participants and reasons for non-participation should be stated to reduce the likelihood of making unsupported statements [ 18 ]. Researchers should report the sample size of their study to enable readers to assess the diversity of perspectives included.

(iii) Setting: Researchers should describe the context in which the data were collected because it illuminates why participants responded in a particular way. For instance, participants might be more reserved and feel disempowered talking in a hospital setting. The presence of non-participants during interviews or focus groups should be reported as this can also affect the opinions expressed by participants. For example, parent interviewees might be reluctant to talk on sensitive topics if their children are present. Participant characteristics, such as basic demographic data, should be reported so readers can consider the relevance of the findings and interpretations to their own situation. This also allows readers to assess whether perspectives from different groups were explored and compared, such as patients and health care providers [ 13 , 19 ].

(iv) Data collection: The questions and prompts used in data collection should be provided to enhance the readers' understanding of the researcher's focus and to give readers the ability to assess whether participants were encouraged to openly convey their viewpoints. Researchers should also report whether repeat interviews were conducted as this can influence the rapport developed between the researcher and participants and affect the richness of data obtained. The method of recording the participants' words should be reported. Generally, audio recording and transcription more accurately reflect the participants' views than contemporaneous researcher notes, more so if participants checked their own transcript for accuracy [ 19–21 ]. Reasons for not audio recording should be provided. In addition, field notes maintain contextual details and non-verbal expressions for data analysis and interpretation [ 19 , 22 ]. Duration of the interview or focus group should be reported as this affects the amount of data obtained. Researchers should also clarify whether participants were recruited until no new relevant knowledge was being obtained from new participants (data saturation) [ 23 , 24 ].

Domain 3: analysis and findings

(i) Data analysis: Specifying the use of multiple coders or other methods of researcher triangulation can indicate a broader and more complex understanding of the phenomenon. The credibility of the findings can be assessed if the process of coding (selecting significant sections from participant statements), and the derivation and identification of themes are made explicit. Descriptions of coding and memoing demonstrate how the researchers perceived, examined and developed their understanding of the data [ 17 , 19 ]. Researchers sometimes use software packages to assist with storage, searching and coding of qualitative data. In addition, obtaining feedback from participants on the research findings adds validity to the researcher's interpretations by ensuring that the participants' own meanings and perspectives are represented and not curtailed by the researchers' own agenda and knowledge [ 23 ].

(ii) Reporting: If supporting quotations are provided, researchers should include quotations from different participants to add transparency and trustworthiness to their findings and interpretations of the data [ 17 ]. Readers should be able to assess the consistency between the data presented and the study findings, including the both major and minor themes. Summary findings, interpretations and theories generated should be clearly presented in qualitative research publications.

The COREQ checklist was developed to promote explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (interviews and focus groups). The checklist consists of items specific to reporting qualitative studies and precludes generic criteria that are applicable to all types of research reports. COREQ is a comprehensive checklist that covers necessary components of study design, which should be reported. The criteria included in the checklist can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

At present, we acknowledge there is no empiric basis that shows that the introduction of COREQ will improve the quality of reporting of qualitative research. However this is no different than when CONSORT, QUOROM and other reporting checklists were introduced. Subsequent research has shown that these checklists have improved the quality of reporting of study types relevant to each checklist [ 5 , 25 ], and we believe that the effect of COREQ is likely to be similar. Despite differences in the objectives and methods of quantitative and qualitative methods, the underlying aim of transparency in research methods and, at the least, the theoretical possibility of the reader being able to duplicate the study methods should be the aims of both methodological approaches. There is a perception among research funding agencies, clinicians and policy makers, that qualitative research is ‘second class’ research. Initiatives like COREQ are designed to encourage improvement in the quality of reporting of qualitative studies, which will indirectly lead to improved conduct, and greater recognition of qualitative research as inherently equal scientific endeavor compared with quantitative research that is used to assess the quality and safety of health care. We invite readers to comment on COREQ to improve the checklist.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

• health personnel
• qualitative research

Supplementary data

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-3677
• Print ISSN 1353-4505
• Copyright © 2024 International Society for Quality in Health Care and Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Seventh Edition (2020)

Table of Contents    |    Supplemental Resources    |    Introduction (PDF)

Official source for APA Style The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Seventh Edition is the official source for APA Style.

Widely adopted With millions of copies sold worldwide in multiple languages, it is the style manual of choice for writers, researchers, editors, students, and educators in the social and behavioral sciences, natural sciences, nursing, communications, education, business, engineering, and other fields.

Authoritative and easy to use Known for its authoritative, easy-to-use reference and citation system, the Publication Manual also offers guidance on choosing the headings, tables, figures, language, and tone that will result in powerful, concise, and elegant scholarly communication.

Scholarly writing It guides users through the scholarly writing process—from the ethics of authorship to reporting research through publication.

• Spiral-Bound $44.99
• Paperback $31.99
• Hardcover $54.99
• Course adoption

It is an indispensable resource for students and professionals to achieve excellence in writing and make an impact with their work.

7 reasons why everyone needs the 7th edition of APA’s bestselling Publication Manual

Full color with first-ever tabbed version

Guidelines for ethical writing and guidance on the publication process

Expanded student-specific resources; includes a sample paper

100+ new reference examples, 40+ sample tables and figures

New chapter on journal article reporting standards

Updated bias-free language guidelines; includes usage of singular “they”

One space after end punctuation!

What’s new in the 7th edition?

Full color All formats are in full color, including the new tabbed spiral-bound version.

Easy to navigate Improved ease of navigation, with many additional numbered sections to help users quickly locate answers to their questions.

Best practices The Publication Manual (7th ed.) has been thoroughly revised and updated to reflect best practices in scholarly writing and publishing.

New student resources Resources for students on writing and formatting annotated bibliographies, response papers, and other paper types as well as guidelines on citing course materials.

Accessibility guidelines Guidelines that support accessibility for all users, including simplified reference, in-text citation, and heading formats as well as additional font options.

New-user content Dedicated chapter for new users of APA Style covering paper elements and format, including sample papers for both professional authors and student writers.

Journal Article Reporting Standards New chapter on journal article reporting standards that includes updates to reporting standards for quantitative research and the first-ever qualitative and mixed methods reporting standards in APA Style.

Bias-free language guidelines New chapter on bias-free language guidelines for writing about people with respect and inclusivity in areas including age, disability, gender, participation in research, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and intersectionality

100+ reference examples More than 100 new reference examples covering periodicals, books, audiovisual media, social media, webpages and websites, and legal resources.

40+ new sample tables and figures More than 40 new sample tables and figures, including student-friendly examples such as a correlation table and a bar chart as well as examples that show how to reproduce a table or figure from another source.

Ethics expanded Expanded guidance on ethical writing and publishing practices, including how to ensure the appropriate level of citation, avoid plagiarism and self-plagiarism, and navigate the publication process.

7th edition table of contents

• Front Matter
• 1. Scholarly Writing and Publishing Principles
• 2. Paper Elements and Format
• 3. Journal Article Reporting Standards
• 4. Writing Style and Grammar
• 5. Bias-Free Language Guidelines
• 6. Mechanics of Style
• 7. Tables and Figures
• 8. Works Credited in the Text
• 9. Reference List
• 10. Reference Examples
• 11. Legal References
• 12. Publication Process
• Back Matter

List of Tables and Figures

Editorial Staff and Contributors

Acknowledgments

Introduction (PDF, 94KB)

Types of Articles and Papers

1.1 Quantitative Articles 1.2 Qualitative Articles 1.3 Mixed Methods Articles 1.4 Replication Articles 1.5 Quantitative and Qualitative Meta-Analyses 1.6 Literature Review Articles 1.7 Theoretical Articles 1.8 Methodological Articles 1.9 Other Types of Articles 1.10 Student Papers, Dissertations, and Theses

Ethical, legal, and professional standards in publishing

Ensuring the Accuracy of Scientific Findings

1.11 Planning for Ethical Compliance 1.12 Ethical and Accurate Reporting of Research Results 1.13 Errors, Corrections, and Retractions After Publication 1.14 Data Retention and Sharing 1.15 Additional Data-Sharing Considerations for Qualitative Research 1.16 Duplicate and Piecemeal Publication of Data 1.17 Implications of Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism

Protecting the Rights and Welfare of Research Participants and Subjects

1.18 Rights and Welfare of Research Participants and Subjects 1.19 Protecting Confidentiality 1.20 Conflict of Interest

Protecting Intellectual Property Rights

1.21 Publication Credit 1.22 Order of Authors 1.23 Authors’ Intellectual Property Rights During Manuscript Review 1.24 Authors’ Copyright on Unpublished Manuscripts 1.25 Ethical Compliance Checklist

Required Elements

2.1 Professional Paper Required Elements 2.2 Student Paper Required Elements

Paper Elements

2.3 Title Page 2.4 Title 2.5 Author Name (Byline) 2.6 Author Affiliation 2.7 Author Note 2.8 Running Head 2.9 Abstract 2.10 Keywords 2.11 Text (Body) 2.12 Reference List 2.13 Footnotes 2.14 Appendices 2.15 Supplemental Materials

2.16 Importance of Format 2.17 Order of Pages 2.18 Page Header 2.19 Font 2.20 Special Characters 2.21 Line Spacing 2.22 Margins 2.23 Paragraph Alignment 2.24 Paragraph Indentation 2.25 Paper Length

Organization

2.26 Principles of Organization 2.27 Heading Levels 2.28 Section Labels

Sample papers

Overview of Reporting Standards

3.1 Application of the Principles of JARS 3.2 Terminology Used in JARS

Common Reporting Standards Across Research Designs

3.3 Abstract Standards 3.4 Introduction Standards

Reporting Standards for Quantitative Research

3.5 Basic Expectations for Quantitative Research Reporting 3.6 Quantitative Method Standards 3.7 Quantitative Results Standards 3.8 Quantitative Discussion Standards 3.9 Additional Reporting Standards for Typical Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies 3.10 Reporting Standards for Special Designs 3.11 Standards for Analytic Approaches 3.12 Quantitative Meta-Analysis Standards

Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research

3.13 Basic Expectations for Qualitative Research Reporting 3.14 Qualitative Method Standards 3.15 Qualitative Findings or Results Standards 3.16 Qualitative Discussion Standards 3.17 Qualitative Meta-Analysis Standards

Reporting Standards for Mixed Methods Research

3.18 Basic Expectations for Mixed Methods Research Reporting

Effective scholarly writing

Continuity and Flow

4.1 Importance of Continuity and Flow 4.2 Transitions 4.3 Noun Strings

Conciseness and Clarity

4.4 Importance of Conciseness and Clarity 4.5 Wordiness and Redundancy 4.6 Sentence and Paragraph Length 4.7 Tone 4.8 Contractions and Colloquialisms 4.9 Jargon 4.10 Logical Comparisons 4.11 Anthropomorphism

Grammar and usage

4.12 Verb Tense 4.13 Active and Passive Voice 4.14 Mood 4.15 Subject and Verb Agreement

4.16 First- Versus Third-Person Pronouns 4.17 Editorial “We” 4.18 Singular “They” 4.19 Pronouns for People and Animals (“Who” vs. “That”) 4.20 Pronouns as Subjects and Objects (“Who” vs. “Whom”) 4.21 Pronouns in Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Clauses (“That” vs. “Which”)

Sentence Construction

4.22 Subordinate Conjunctions 4.23 Misplaced and Dangling Modifiers 4.24 Parallel Construction

Strategies to Improve Your Writing

4.25 Reading to Learn Through Example 4.26 Writing From an Outline 4.27 Rereading the Draft 4.28 Seeking Help From Colleagues 4.29 Working With Copyeditors and Writing Centers 4.30 Revising a Paper

General Guidelines for Reducing Bias

5.1 Describe at the Appropriate Level of Specificity 5.2 Be Sensitive to Labels

Reducing Bias by Topic

5.3 Age 5.4 Disability 5.5 Gender 5.6 Participation in Research 5.7 Racial and Ethnic Identity 5.8 Sexual Orientation 5.9 Socioeconomic Status 5.10 Intersectionality

Punctuation

6.1 Spacing After Punctuation Marks 6.2 Period 6.3 Comma 6.4 Semicolon 6.5 Colon 6.6 Dash 6.7 Quotation Marks 6.8 Parentheses 6.9 Square Brackets 6.10 Slash

6.11 Preferred Spelling 6.12 Hyphenation

Capitalization

6.13 Words Beginning a Sentence 6.14 Proper Nouns and Trade Names 6.15 Job Titles and Positions 6.16 Diseases, Disorders, Therapies, Theories, and Related Terms 6.17 Titles of Works and Headings Within Works 6.18 Titles of Tests and Measures 6.19 Nouns Followed by Numerals or Letters 6.20 Names of Conditions or Groups in an Experiment 6.21 Names of Factors, Variables, and Effects

6.22 Use of Italics 6.23 Reverse Italics

Abbreviations

6.24 Use of Abbreviations 6.25 Definition of Abbreviations 6.26 Format of Abbreviations 6.27 Unit of Measurement Abbreviations 6.28 Time Abbreviations 6.29 Latin Abbreviations 6.30 Chemical Compound Abbreviations 6.31 Gene and Protein Name Abbreviations

6.32 Numbers Expressed in Numerals 6.33 Numbers Expressed in Words 6.34 Combining Numerals and Words to Express Numbers 6.35 Ordinal Numbers 6.36 Decimal Fractions 6.37 Roman Numerals 6.38 Commas in Numbers 6.39 Plurals of Numbers

Statistical and Mathematical Copy

6.40 Selecting Effective Presentation 6.41 References for Statistics 6.42 Formulas 6.43 Statistics in Text 6.44 Statistical Symbols and Abbreviations 6.45 Spacing, Alignment, and Punctuation for Statistics

Presentation of Equations

6.46 Equations in Text 6.47 Displayed Equations 6.48 Preparing Statistical and Mathematical Copy for Publication

6.49 List Guidelines 6.50 Lettered Lists 6.51 Numbered Lists 6.52 Bulleted Lists

General Guidelines for Tables and Figures

7.1 Purpose of Tables and Figures 7.2 Design and Preparation of Tables and Figures 7.3 Graphical Versus Textual Presentation 7.4 Formatting Tables and Figures 7.5 Referring to Tables and Figures in the Text 7.6 Placement of Tables and Figures 7.7 Reprinting or Adapting Tables and Figures

7.8 Principles of Table Construction 7.9 Table Components 7.10 Table Numbers 7.11 Table Titles 7.12 Table Headings 7.13 Table Body 7.14 Table Notes 7.15 Standard Abbreviations in Tables and Figures 7.16 Confidence Intervals in Tables 7.17 Table Borders and Shading 7.18 Long or Wide Tables 7.19 Relation Between Tables 7.20 Table Checklist 7.21 Sample Tables

Sample tables

7.22 Principles of Figure Construction 7.23 Figure Components 7.24 Figure Numbers 7.25 Figure Titles 7.26 Figure Images 7.27 Figure Legends 7.28 Figure Notes 7.29 Relation Between Figures 7.30 Photographs 7.31 Considerations for Electrophysiological, Radiological, Genetic, and Other Biological Data 7.32 Electrophysiological Data 7.33 Radiological (Imaging) Data 7.34 Genetic Data 7.35 Figure Checklist 7.36 Sample Figures

Sample figures

General Guidelines for Citation

8.1 Appropriate Level of Citation 8.2 Plagiarism 8.3 Self-Plagiarism 8.4 Correspondence Between Reference List and Text 8.5 Use of the Published Version or Archival Version 8.6 Primary and Secondary Sources

Works Requiring Special Approaches to Citation

8.7 Interviews 8.8 Classroom or Intranet Sources 8.9 Personal Communications

In-Text Citations

8.10 Author–Date Citation System 8.11 Parenthetical and Narrative Citations 8.12 Citing Multiple Works 8.13 Citing Specific Parts of a Source 8.14 Unknown or Anonymous Author 8.15 Translated, Reprinted, Republished, and Reissued Dates 8,16 Omitting the Year in Repeated Narrative Citations 8.17 Number of Authors to Include in In-Text Citations 8.18 Avoiding Ambiguity in In-Text Citations 8.19 Works With the Same Author and Same Date 8.20 Authors With the Same Surname 8.21 Abbreviating Group Authors 8.22 General Mentions of Websites, Periodicals, and Common Software and Apps

Paraphrases and Quotations

8.23 Principles of Paraphrasing 8.24 Long Paraphrases 8.25 Principles of Direct Quotation 8.26 Short Quotations (Fewer Than 40 Words) 8.27 Block Quotations (40 Words or More) 8.28 Direct Quotation of Material Without Page Numbers 8.29 Accuracy of Quotations 8.30 Changes to a Quotation Requiring No Explanation 8.31 Changes to a Quotation Requiring Explanation 8.32 Quotations That Contain Citations to Other Works 8.33 Quotations That Contain Material Already in Quotation Marks 8.34 Permission to Reprint or Adapt Lengthy Quotations 8.35 Epigraphs 8.36 Quotations From Research Participants

Reference Categories

9.1 Determining the Reference Category 9.2 Using the Webpages and Websites Reference Category 9.3 Online and Print References

Principles of Reference List Entries

9.4 Four Elements of a Reference 9.5 Punctuation Within Reference List Entries 9.6 Accuracy and Consistency in References

Reference elements

9.7 Definition of Author 9.8 Format of the Author Element 9.9 Spelling and Capitalization of Author Names 9.10 Identification of Specialized Roles 9.11 Group Authors 9.12 No Author

9.13 Definition of Date 9.14 Format of the Date Element 9.15 Updated or Reviewed Online Works 9.16 Retrieval Dates 9.17 No Date

9.18 Definition of Title 9.19 Format of the Title Element 9.20 Series and Multivolume Works 9.21 Bracketed Descriptions 9.22 No Title

9.23 Definition of Source 9.24 Format of the Source Element 9.25 Periodical Sources 9.26 Online Periodicals With Missing Information 9.27 Article Numbers 9.28 Edited Book Chapter and Reference Work Entry Sources 9.29 Publisher Sources 9.30 Database and Archive Sources 9.31 Works With Specific Locations 9.32 Social Media Sources 9.33 Website Sources 9.34 When to Include DOIs and URLs 9.35 Format of DOIs and URLs 9.36 DOI or URL Shorteners 9.37 No Source

Reference Variations

9.38 Works in Another Language 9.39 Translated Works 9.40 Reprinted Works 9.41 Republished or Reissued Works 9.42 Religious and Classical Works

Reference List Format and Order

9.43 Format of the Reference List 9.44 Order of Works in the Reference List 9.45 Order of Surname and Given Name 9.46 Order of Multiple Works by the Same First Author 9.47 Order of Works With the Same Author and Same Date 9.48 Order of Works by First Authors With the Same Surname 9.49 Order of Works With No Author or an Anonymous Author 9.50 Abbreviations in References 9.51 Annotated Bibliographies 9.52 References Included in a Meta-Analysis

Author Variations

Date Variations

Title Variations

Source Variations

Textual Works

10.1 Periodicals 10.2 Books and Reference Works 10.3 Edited Book Chapters and Entries in Reference Works 10.4 Reports and Gray Literature 10.5 Conference Sessions and Presentations 10.6 Dissertations and Theses 10.7 Reviews 10.8 Unpublished Works and Informally Published Works

Data Sets, Software, and Tests

10.9 Data Sets 10.10 Computer Software, Mobile Apps, Apparatuses, and Equipment 10.11 Tests, Scales, and Inventories

Audiovisual Media

10.12 Audiovisual Works 10.13 Audio Works 10.14 Visual Works

Online Media

10.15 Social Media 10.16 Webpages and Websites

General Guidelines for Legal References

11.1 APA Style References Versus Legal References 11.2 General Forms 11.3 In-Text Citations of Legal Materials

Legal Reference Examples

11.4 Cases or Court Decisions 11.5 Statutes (Laws and Acts) 11.6 Legislative Materials 11.7 Administrative and Executive Materials 11.8 Patents 11.9 Constitutions and Charters 11.10 Treaties and International Conventions

Preparing for Publication

12.1 Adapting a Dissertation or Thesis Into a Journal Article 12.2 Selecting a Journal for Publication 12.3 Prioritizing Potential Journals 12.4 Avoiding Predatory Journals

Understanding the Editorial Publication Process

12.5 Editorial Publication Process 12.6 Role of the Editors 12.7 Peer Review Process 12.8 Manuscript Decisions

Manuscript Preparation

12.9 Preparing the Manuscript for Submission 12.10 Using an Online Submission Portal 12.11 Writing a Cover Letter 12.12 Corresponding During Publication 12.13 Certifying Ethical Requirements

Copyright and Permission Guidelines

12.14 General Guidelines for Reprinting or Adapting Materials 12.15 Materials That Require Copyright Attribution 12.16 Copyright Status 12.17 Permission and Fair Use 12.18 Copyright Attribution Formats

During and After Publication

12.19 Article Proofs 12.20 Published Article Copyright Policies 12.21 Open Access Deposit Policies 12.22 Writing a Correction Notice 12.23 Sharing Your Article Online 12.24 Promoting Your Article

Credits for Adapted Tables, Figures, and Papers