The relevance of the article lies in the absence of a systematic approach to identifying reforms in terms of their genuineness and success. Accordingly, the objective was to undertake a theoretical examination of the parameters shaping the conceptual framework of reforms and to provide a methodological justification for the indicators and criteria used in their identification. The research employed expert-analytical methods to examine the conceptual landscape of reforms, as well as their essence and content, based on the established indicators and criteria. The principal outcomes of the study include the formulation of parameters for determining the authenticity of reforms – distinguishing them, on the one hand, from revolutions and, on the other, from incremental improvements. As a result, the following indicators for identifying reforms were proposed: receptivity, scale, fundamentality, radicality, complexity, sociality, and effectiveness. The criteria for evaluating these indicators were substantiated using analytical data, comparative assessments across countries, expert evaluations, and factual analysis. The proposed theoretical and methodological framework was tested using case studies of agrarian reform in Ukraine, post-socialist states, post‑Soviet countries, China, and Japan. The practical significance of identifying reforms is highlighted, particularly in determining and characterising their genuineness and success through international and historical comparisons