Recent prescriptions and policies would have us judge research by non-evidentiary standards, e.g. presumed political impact and scholar identity. In a new essay, Tom Clark and I argue empirical claims should instead be evaluated based on evidentiary strength. We outline a framework for judging evidence, and show its usefulness by revisiting high-profile scholarly disagreements spanning policing, political violence, election administration, and terrorism, before critiquing non-evidentiary approaches. We also argue social science needs a culture that is hospitable to critique—rather than one which condemns critics as “bullies”—if quality standards are to be upheld. dropbox.com/scl/fi/fsgpflron…