This chapter discusses different ways of conceptualising quality in health professions education research (HPER). It explains a framework for quality in HPER. The chapter describes the difference between reporting guidelines and critical appraisal tools. It also discusses the strengths and weaknesses of different tools for reporting and critical appraisal. The chapter also explains the quality of a research report using appropriate tools and provides feedback to report authors. Conducting quality research requires time, resources, and training — all of which have been identified as lacking due to insufficient funding for HPER. Positioning is important when interpreting the findings of a study and describing its implications. Relevance considers the relationship between a study's anticipated implications and important contextual factors such as audience, setting, current events, and priorities. Internal coherence is an important marker of quality as it ‘makes clear the conventions of the research to support interpretations’.