In this commentary, I argue that the injunction to “chart, don’t theme” in scoping reviews needs revision because the methodology has experienced methodological shifting. This means that the, scoping review methodology has evolved because it has moved across epistemological traditions. I contend that charting is methodologically coherent for scoping reviews conducted from an objectivist epistemology, whereas reflexive thematic analysis is coherent for scoping reviews conducted from a subjectivist epistemology. I conclude that researchers should make their epistemological stance explicit and select analytic practices that align with that stance. In summation, I suggest reframing the methodological choice as “chart or theme, depending on epistemology.”