How conspiracy theories are defined: A systematic qualitative review of academic definitions

<ns3:p>Background Although conspiracy theories are studied across multiple disciplines, their definition remains unsettled. Despite a substantial body of empirical research, definitions have not been systematically analysed, leaving it unclear how conceptual variation shapes research, methods, and findings. Methods Drawing on an original dataset of peer-reviewed publications, this study applies inductive qualitative content analysis to identify recurring dimensions along which academic definitions vary, including ontological assumptions, evaluative orientations, epistemic characterisations, constitutive features and scope. It further introduces a genealogical mapping of citation relationships to assess whether these dimensions structure more frequently reused definitions. Results The content analysis shows that while many definitions converge in framing conspiracy theories as explanatory accounts involving secret coordination, they differ in how they embed evaluative and epistemic judgments. Genealogical mapping demonstrates that conceptual variation persists even among central formulations and is reproduced through citation practices. Conclusions Definitional diversity in conspiracy theory research is maintained through citations. Making definitional choices explicit and treating definitions as analytical tools rather than background assumptions can improve conceptual clarity, comparability, and cumulative research.</ns3:p>