CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: ref 2029 eligibility

  • REF 2029 Output Eligibility: OA Exceptions

    REF 2029 output eligibility does not require every journal article or conference paper to be immediately open access. The policy allows four exception categories — deposit, access, technical, and a catch-all “other” route covering staff circumstances, third-party rights and technical infeasibility — each keeping an otherwise non-compliant output eligible, provided the exception is identified, evidenced and stays within a unit’s five per cent non-compliance tolerance.

    The REF 2029 open access policy is the UK funding bodies’ requirement that in-scope journal articles and conference proceedings, published between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2028, be deposited, discoverable and freely accessible to be eligible for the Research Excellence Framework 2029, subject to defined exceptions.

    Durham University’s Library Research Support service publishes a working exceptions log — updated as recently as 1 July 2026 — that maps each permitted exception to the evidence a research office should hold, offering a practical template for institutions building their own REF 2029 compliance file.

    Contents

    What counts as an REF 2029 output eligibility exception?

    An REF 2029 output eligibility exception is a recognised circumstance under which an in-scope journal article or conference contribution is exempt from some or all open access criteria while remaining eligible for submission. The REF 2029 open access policy, last updated 13 June 2025, groups these into deposit, access and technical exceptions plus a further “other” exception for circumstances beyond an institution’s control.

    Applying an exception correctly means the output is treated as no-detriment and does not count against a unit’s compliance tolerance. Misapplying one, or failing to evidence it, risks the output being reclassified as unclassified during audit.

    Two separate exception frameworks apply depending on when the output was first published:

    • Outputs published 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2025 follow the carried-forward REF 2021 exception categories, with one additional exception added for REF 2029.
    • Outputs published from 1 January 2026 follow a revised, consolidated exceptions framework of four categories, alongside tighter embargo maxima (six months for Main Panels A and B, twelve months for Main Panels C and D, down from twelve and twenty-four months respectively).

    Individual staff circumstances: who qualifies for an exception?

    Staff-circumstance exceptions cover authors whose personal, employment or contractual situation made compliance genuinely impossible. Under the “other” exception, this includes extenuating personal circumstances such as extended leave, industrial action, institutional closure days, and software problems not already covered by the technical category.

    A related technical exception applies where an output has a substantive connection to the submitting institution but was published after the author’s employment ended, and compliance could not be determined. A further exception, introduced for REF 2029, exempts outputs authored entirely by staff ineligible for the volume measure, since they had no expectation of needing compliance.

    One risk is flagged explicitly: institutions relying heavily on the “other” category are more likely to attract a higher audit risk score, though deposit, access or technical exceptions do not themselves raise risk. A researcher on long-term sick leave whose manuscript could not be deposited within the three-month window would typically be recorded under “other”, with leave dates and repository correspondence kept as evidence — the record Durham’s log recommends holding before, not after, submission.

    Third-party rights and technical infeasibility: the other routes

    Third-party rights exceptions apply where an output reproduces content — images, data extracts, previously published material — for which open licences could not be obtained at reasonable cost or within the required timescale. Here, deposit and discovery requirements still apply; only access and/or licensing conditions are waived.

    Technical infeasibility exceptions cover cases where the failure sits with infrastructure rather than the author: a repository’s short-term technical failure (excluding systemic issues), or an external service provider failure, such as a subject repository that did not lift an embargo on schedule or ceased operating altogether.

    Exception category What it exempts Typical qualifying scenario
    Deposit All open access criteria (deposit, discovery, access, licensing) Unlawful to deposit; publisher disallows repository deposit; delay securing final peer-reviewed text
    Access Access, embargo and/or licensing only — deposit and discovery still required Embargo exceeds policy maxima; third-party content licensing unavailable
    Technical All open access criteria Repository or external service provider failure; employment ended before publication
    Other All open access criteria Personal circumstances, industrial action, closure days, unlisted software issues

    Durham’s exceptions log as a working model

    Durham University’s Library Research Support service maintains a dedicated REF 2029 Open Access Exceptions guide, structured as four tabs: deposit, access, and technical/other exceptions for outputs published to 31 December 2025, plus a consolidated four-category framework for outputs from 1 January 2026. Each tab pairs the qualifying scenarios with how the exception is expected to be evidenced during any future audit.

    Two features make it a useful model: it separates outputs by publication date, since qualifying criteria and embargo maxima genuinely differ either side of 1 January 2026; and it is candid about what remains unresolved. As of its 1 July 2026 update, Durham states that “the internal process for applying exceptions is yet to be confirmed,” directing queries to its repository administration team meanwhile — a reminder that internal workflows keep evolving well after the REF policy text has stabilised.

    Documenting exceptions for audit: what research offices must keep

    REF 2029 audit will broadly mirror the risk-based approach used for REF 2021, per the funding bodies’ guidance, while final procedures remain under development. In REF 2021, ten institutions’ submissions were selected for second-stage audit on a risk basis, producing four data adjustments; three were separately selected for substantive sampling; one had to adjust its submission by a single output. For REF 2029, evidence may be required at individual-output level, including written justification for any use of the “other” category.

    A minimum evidence file for each exception should include:

    1. The exception category claimed and the REF 2029 guidance paragraph it falls under.
    2. Dates of acceptance, publication and deposit, plus any embargo end date.
    3. Correspondence documenting the barrier — a publisher refusal, or confirmation of a service outage.
    4. A short narrative justification, particularly for “most appropriate publication” or “other” claims.
    5. Confirmation the output falls within the unit’s five per cent, or one-output, tolerance.

    Institutions should also monitor exception mix over time: a submission weighted heavily toward “other”, rather than deposit, access or technical exceptions, is more likely to draw a higher audit risk score, even where every claim is legitimate.

    Answer-first Q&A

    What is the publication period for REF 2029?

    The output types in scope of the REF 2029 open access policy are journal articles and conference contributions with an International Standard Serial Number, first published between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2028. Outputs published from 1 January 2026 follow revised deposit, embargo and licensing requirements, while earlier outputs follow REF 2021-derived rules carried forward for REF 2029.

    What publications are eligible for REF 2029?

    Eligible outputs include journal articles and conference proceedings with an ISSN, plus long-form outputs such as monographs, book chapters and scholarly editions, which carry no open access requirement. Datasets, code, protocols and artistic creations are also welcomed, though they sit outside the open access policy’s scope entirely.

    What does the REF output rating measure?

    REF output quality is measured against three fundamental dimensions: originality, the development of new concepts or techniques; significance, the capacity to influence scholarly thought, policy or practice; and rigour, the intellectual coherence and robustness of the methodology. Open access exceptions affect eligibility, not the quality score itself, which panels assess independently.

    What this means for research offices ahead of REF 2029

    For research administration teams, exception management is now a compliance workstream in its own right, not an afterthought bolted onto repository deposit. With a five per cent (or one-output) tolerance per unit of assessment, a handful of poorly evidenced exceptions can tip a submission over the threshold and trigger removal of otherwise strong outputs. Institutions should build an exceptions log now, using Durham’s date-segmented structure as a template: separate outputs to 31 December 2025 from those from 1 January 2026, record the exception paragraph relied upon, and retain evidence when the exception first arises, not retrospectively. Given that REF 2021 audits produced adjustments even at confident institutions, a living exceptions file — not a retrospective justification exercise — separates a smooth submission from a last-minute scramble.

  • REF 2029 Portability: What Changes for Moving Staff

    REF 2029 portability ends automatic transfer of most research outputs when staff change institutions. Outputs are now “decoupled” from individual authors and instead require a demonstrable “substantive link” to the submitting institution, with one exception: long-form outputs such as monographs stay portable with the author for five years. The rule, confirmed by the four UK funding bodies in December 2025, replaces the dual-submission compromise used in REF 2021.

    Portability, in REF terms, is the rule set that determines which institution — the one a researcher has left, or the one they have joined — may submit a given research output for assessment. REF 2029 narrows that rule further than any previous exercise, and the change has become one of the most contested elements of the framework’s redesign.

    What REF 2029 Changes for Portability

    REF 2029’s initial decisions, published in 2023, “decoupled” research outputs from the individual researchers who produced them. Where REF 2021 attributed outputs to named staff on a submission list, REF 2029 requires only that a submitting institution demonstrate a substantive link to the output — evidence that it supported the underlying research.

    Research England’s Head of REF Policy has described this as a shift toward assessing “how well organisations are supporting research excellence” rather than tracking individual output counts. In practice, that means the REF volume measure and staff lists are no longer the sole determinants of which outputs an institution may submit.

    For standard outputs — journal articles, conference papers, most datasets and software — the substantive link is generally established by an eligible employment relationship between the institution and the author when the research was conducted or the output first made publicly available. Once a researcher leaves, that link does not automatically transfer to their new employer.

    This is a marked departure from REF 2021, which let both the origin and destination institution return an output where a researcher transferred, and from REF 2014, where only the destination institution could submit if the move happened before a single census date. The table below sets out how the rule has moved across three cycles.

    REF cycle Portability rule Long-form treatment
    REF 2014 Single census date; only the destination institution could submit if a researcher moved before it No separate treatment
    REF 2021 Compromise rule: both origin and destination institutions could return the same output on transfer No separate treatment
    REF 2029 Outputs decoupled from individuals; standard outputs require a substantive institutional link and are not portable Portable for five years if the new post began within that window

    The REF 2021 compromise itself had a contested history: Lord Stern’s 2016 independent review of the REF recommended full non-portability, but Research England judged that too significant a change to introduce that late in the REF 2021 cycle, and adopted dual submission instead.

    Why Long-Form Outputs Get a Five-Year Exception

    On 10 December 2025, following a three-month pause and intense sector pushback, REF 2029 published updated guidance restoring limited portability for “long-form and extended-process” outputs — monographs, edited collections and scholarly editions. These remain attached to the author for five years, provided the researcher’s employment at the new institution began within that window.

    According to Times Higher Education’s reporting on the announcement, institutions can deploy this exception where the academic was employed at some point during a two-year staff census window that opened in September 2025 — though commentators on that same report disputed how directly the census window bears on long-form eligibility, underlining how unsettled the operational detail still is.

    Reaction split along familiar lines. Jennifer Richards, chair of the English Association and professor of English literature at the University of Cambridge, called herself “delighted that an element of portability has been restored,” describing it as “a ‘win’ for all researchers in a sector that has become increasingly precarious at every stage of career.” Margot Finn, vice-president for higher education and research at the British Academy, called the concession “excellent and very welcome.” Rosa Freedman, professor of law at the University of Reading, was less convinced, arguing the “half in-half out” approach “doesn’t seem to have much logic” and that outputs should belong either wholly to the employer or wholly to the researcher.

    What the Sector Consultation Flagged as Unresolved Risk

    Sector consultation ahead of the December 2025 decision surfaced risks that the rule change does not fully resolve. Institutions can still retain long-form outputs credited to staff they have since made redundant — a concession the reversal did not touch. Several concerns recur across the consultation record:

    • Early-career and precariously employed researchers lose standard outputs as a bargaining tool when applying for new posts, since those outputs no longer travel with them.
    • Redundant staff may see their long-form outputs retained and submitted by an institution that has already ended their employment.
    • Co-authored outputs where authors move to different institutions raise unresolved questions about which institution’s substantive link takes precedence, particularly where authorship attribution is contested.
    • Discipline-specific impact: arts, humanities and social science bodies — including the English Association, the Institute of English Studies and University English — wrote jointly to flag that decoupling disproportionately affects fields where long-form outputs and precarious contracts are both common.

    A joint Wonkhe analysis by academics at the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, the University of Oxford and the University of Edinburgh went further, warning that decoupling removes any auditable limit on how many outputs by one individual a unit can submit, which they argued undermines the diversity-of-contribution goal the rule change was partly designed to serve.

    Common Questions on REF 2029 Portability

    What period does REF 2029 cover?

    REF 2029 runs on an extended timetable after the exercise was renamed from REF 2028 to REF 2029 in a December 2023 decision. The criteria-setting phase runs to summer 2026, the assessment phase is planned for winter 2028 to autumn 2029, with results published in December 2029.

    What outputs are eligible for REF 2029?

    Standard outputs are eligible where the submitting institution demonstrates a substantive link — typically an eligible employment relationship with the author when the research was conducted or first made public. Long-form outputs, such as monographs, remain eligible at a new institution for five years after the researcher’s move.

    What is the weighting for REF 2029?

    REF 2029’s December 2025 guidance weights Contributions to Knowledge and Understanding at 55% of the overall quality profile, Engagement and Impact at 25%, and Strategy, People and Research Environment at 20%, shifting emphasis toward institutional research culture rather than individual output counts.

    Is it REF 2028 or REF 2029?

    It is REF 2029. The four UK funding bodies renamed the exercise from REF 2028 to REF 2029 in December 2023, extending the assessment timetable to give institutions more time to adjust to decoupling, open access and portability rule changes ahead of results in December 2029.

    What Institutions Should Do Next

    Research administrators handling staff transfers should treat the substantive-link test, not the researcher’s current employer, as the operative question for every output under consideration. That means auditing when each output’s underlying research was conducted or first made public, and mapping it against the employment record at that time — a task that sits squarely with research administration teams managing REF submission pipelines.

    For long-form outputs, institutions should document the five-year window and the justification for classifying a work as “long-form and extended-process” at the point of hire, not retrospectively. Because the rule change also reopens questions about how authorship attribution interacts with institutional submission rights, joint appointments and co-authored outputs deserve particular scrutiny before the assessment phase begins in 2027.

    The sector consultation record makes clear that portability remains an unresolved fairness question, not a settled technical rule. Institutions that build audit trails now — rather than waiting for further REF guidance — will be better placed when panels begin assessing submissions from 2028 onward.

  • REF 2029 Census Date: No Single Date, New Rules

    REF 2029 has no single census date. Unlike REF 2021, which fixed staff eligibility to a single snapshot (31 July 2020), REF 2029 replaces the census-date model with a volume measure — an average full-time-equivalent (FTE) figure calculated from Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data across two academic years, 2025/26 and 2026/27. Institutions will submit a pool of research outputs sized to that average, rather than assigning outputs to named individuals on a fixed date.

    This is the single most consequential structural change in the next Research Excellence Framework (REF), and it changes how research offices plan staffing data, HR coordination, and output collection for the 2027–2028 submission window. This guide sets out what changed, why, and what to track.

    What happened to the REF 2029 census date?

    Every previous REF cycle fixed staff eligibility to a single date. REF 2021 used a census date of 31 July 2020: whoever held an eligible contract on that day was in scope, and institutions submitted named individuals against specific outputs.

    REF 2029 abandons that model entirely. As Research Professional News confirmed in August 2024, the four UK funding bodies reminded the sector that institutions “will submit outputs, not staff” for the next exercise, meaning there is no census date in the REF 2021 sense. The change was formalised through the REF 2029 volume measure policy, published via the official REF 2029 site (2029.ref.ac.uk).

    How does the volume measure replace the census date?

    The REF 2029 volume measure is an average FTE figure drawn directly from HESA staff data, calculated across two academic years: 2025/26 and 2026/27. This average determines how many outputs an institution submits per unit of assessment — it does not require any single-day snapshot of who was employed and does not require institutions to name individual authors against outputs.

    The mechanism decouples output volume from individual staff attribution. Institutions submit a representative pool of outputs for a discipline rather than a one-to-one mapping between named staff and named outputs — the core reform behind the “not staff” framing the funding bodies used in 2024.

    REF 2029 key dates and submission timetable

    The REF 2029 team last updated the official project timetable on 10 December 2025. The exercise itself was renamed from REF 2028 to REF 2029 following a December 2023 policy decision that extended the assessment period, with results now planned for December 2029.

    Milestone Planned timing
    Volume measure period (HESA FTE average) Academic years 2025/26 and 2026/27
    Final guidance on submissions and panel criteria published Autumn 2026
    Survey of submission intentions opens / closes Spring 2027 / Summer 2027
    Submission window opens Autumn 2027
    Submission deadline; assessment phase begins Autumn 2028
    Publication of results December 2029
    Publication of submitted data and REF 2029 reports 2030

    The exercise was paused in autumn 2025 during criteria-setting, and weightings were reconfirmed in winter 2025 before guidance drafting resumed. Research offices should treat the autumn 2027 submission opening and autumn 2028 deadline as the two hard planning anchors, since HESA data collection for the volume measure is already underway across both reference years.

    Who counts towards REF 2029 staff eligibility?

    Because there is no census date, eligibility now works through two HESA-derived staff categories that feed the volume measure calculation:

    • Teaching and Research contract staff with “significant responsibility for research” — the precise definition is expected in the autumn 2026 final guidance.
    • Research-only contract staff classified as independent researchers under HESA reporting.

    A separate, broader eligibility route applies to research outputs themselves. Institutions may submit outputs from any staff member with a “demonstrable and substantive link” to the institution — including technicians, research managers, and other research-enabling roles — provided the individual holds at least a 0.2 FTE contract and research activity forms part of that role. The output eligibility window has been provisionally indicated by institutional REF teams (for example, the University of St Andrews) as running from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2028, pending final confirmation in the autumn 2026 guidance.

    Answer-first Q&A

    What is the cut-off date for REF 2029?

    There is no single cut-off date for staff eligibility in REF 2029. The volume measure instead uses an average FTE calculated from HESA data across academic years 2025/26 and 2026/27. The output eligibility window is provisionally indicated as 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2028, pending final guidance.

    What are the key changes for REF 2029?

    REF 2029 replaces the outputs element with Contribution to Knowledge and Understanding (55% weighting) and the environment element with Strategy, People and Research Environment (20% weighting). Individual staff are no longer submitted; institutions submit representative output pools sized by the HESA-derived volume measure instead.

    Is it REF 2028 or REF 2029?

    The exercise is officially REF 2029. It was originally planned as REF 2028, but a December 2023 policy decision extended the timetable, and results are now scheduled for publication in December 2029 rather than the earlier target year.

    What publications are eligible for REF 2029?

    In-scope longform output types provisionally mirror REF 2021 definitions: published books, book chapters, edited books, and scholarly editions. Final panel-specific output criteria, including any changes to eligible formats, are expected in the autumn 2026 Final Guidance on Submissions and Panel Criteria.

    Implications for research offices

    The shift from a fixed census date to a two-year HESA average changes what research offices need to track and when. Priority actions:

    1. Verify HR/HESA data accuracy for 2025/26 now — errors in this reference year directly shape the institution’s volume-measure baseline and cannot be corrected retroactively once the period closes.
    2. Track the autumn 2026 Final Guidance publication for confirmed definitions of “significant responsibility for research” and “independent researcher.”
    3. Prepare Code of Practice documentation ahead of the survey of submission intentions (spring–summer 2027), which will require institutions to state early submission plans.
    4. Map research-enabling staff (technicians, research managers) against the 0.2 FTE and “demonstrable and substantive link” output-eligibility test, since this is a new, broader eligibility route absent from REF 2021.

    Institutions with strong research administration functions are better positioned to absorb this shift, since research administration teams already coordinate the HR, HESA, and output-tracking data flows that the volume measure depends on. The removal of a single census date does not reduce the compliance burden — it redistributes it across a longer two-year data-integrity window, with less room to correct late-discovered errors.

    With autumn 2026 guidance, spring 2027 submission-intention surveys, and the autumn 2028 deadline now fixed on the official timetable, research offices have a defined runway to align HESA reporting, staff contract classification, and output-tracking systems before the volume measure calculation window closes.