One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?

Developing a universal quality standard for thematic analysis (TA) is complicated by the existence of numerous iterations of TA that differ paradigmatically, philosophically and procedurally. This plurality in TA is oftennotrecognised by editors, reviewers or authors, who promote 'coding reliability measures' as universal requirements of quality TA. Focusing particularly on ourreflexiveTA approach, we discuss quality in TA with reference to ten common problems we have identified in published TA research that cites or claims to follow our guidance. Many of the common problems are underpinned by an assumption of homogeneity in TA. We end by outlining guidelines for reviewers and editors - in the form of twenty critical questions - to support them in promoting high(er) standards in TA research, and more deliberative and reflexive engagement with TA as method and practice.