Currently, diverse scientific evidence evaluation tools, terms, and guidelines exist, but they are fragmented and inconsistently tied to foundational theory. This paper proposes an ontology-based framework defining core evaluative concepts (internal validity, construct validity, precision, consistency, meta-analytic internal validity, and reporting transparency) and systematically maps existing evaluation instruments onto these domains. The framework highlights overlaps and gaps, such as limited attention to construct validity, and clarifies distinctions between concepts like external validity and generalizability.