Evaluating quality in co-produced research

Introduction Co-produced research is increasingly used across public health research. Reasons for using co-production its use include inclusivity, power sharing, knowledge creation, and improved impact. Yet, there remains limited critical engagement with how the quality of co-produced research is assessed. This article addresses this gap by interrogating what constitutes quality in co-produced research and how quality might be judged in ways that are rigorous, equitable, and context specific.Results It explores two contrasting approaches: a criteriological approach, which relies on pre-established, often universal criteria; and a relativist approach, which embraces ontological pluralism and proposes an evolving list of criteria co-developed with research partners to judge work.Discussion Examples (e.g. RQ+ 4 Co-Pro; PROSECO framework), problems, and criteria for judging co-produced research are highlighted throughout. The article calls for connoisseurship and when communicating co-production work greater transparency about the approach used.