FAQs

Submitting institutions should follow the REF 2029 Volume Measure guidance, and make HESA returns in line with their usual practice in following the HESA coverage guidance for the staff record.

Individual staff enquiries should be directed to the employing institution in the first instance.

The four UK HE funding bodies have received a number of queries on the inclusion of staff employed by wholly owned subsidiaries in the volume measure for REF 2029. The REF volume measure is derived from HESA staff record data, for which HESA sets out coverage guidance: Staff record 2025/26 – Coverage of the record | HESA. It is the responsibility of HEIs to make returns in accordance with the HESA guidance based on the specific employment arrangements they have in place. Where an HEI requires further guidance on HESA coverage, they should contact HESA for assistance. Final decisions on whether particular staff meet the criteria for inclusion in the HESA Staff return will remain with HEIs rather than the funding bodies or HESA/Jisc.

A central aim of REF 2029 is to emphasise an inclusive research system that supports a diverse range of research activities. Evaluating and understanding the impact of the exercise against its aims is a key part of the process. The funding bodies are committed to the evaluative process and to considering learning for future exercises.

Output eligibility is separate from volume measure eligibility, given REF 2029’s decoupled framework. As stated in the CKU guidance (paragraph 3.1.1), “eligible research outputs do not have to be authored by individuals whose contracts contribute to an institution’s overall submission volume.”

However, institutions must be able to demonstrate a substantive link to any submitted output, as defined in section 6.

Outputs where the substantive link is based on the eligible employment relationship of a staff member who has been subject to compulsory redundancy are eligible for submission to REF 2029, in circumstances where these outputs were published DURING their eligible employment relationship (see Section 6 Substantive Link in the CKU guidance). HEIs will have set out their approach to submitting outputs of this type within their institutional Codes of Practice.

However, outputs which were published AFTER the eligible employment relationship of a staff member who has been subject to compulsory redundancy ended, are not eligible for submission to REF 2029, as outlined in paragraph 6.7.2 in the CKU guidance.

This will be published in autumn 2026. We have confirmed that institutions are advised to continue assigning staff using the REF 2021 UoA descriptors to complete the 2025-26 Staff return. More information is in our news story from July 2026.

This answer was updated on 15 May 2025.

Updated answer: While the policy cites embargoed outputs shared through repository, this clause covers all outputs shared through repository including those where no embargo is required. 

In all cases there are common maximum periods, including deposit a maximum of three months from the date of publication. Full access should be available as soon as possible following deposit subject to the end of any required embargo period.  We have made amendments to the policy wording to make this clear.

Original answer: While the policy cites embargoed outputs shared through repository, this clause covers all outputs shared through repository including those where no embargo is required.

In all cases there are common maximum periods, including deposit three months from the date of publication and access availability from the end of the embargo period.

We will make this clear through amendments to the policy wording. 

We are not able to answer on behalf of Jisc, however from discussions we understand that they are aware of this and other relevant issues. As a membership funded body, institutions can make clear their areas of priority for the upcoming negotiations.

Jisc runs Open Policy finder, and while we can influence, we can’t determine their approach, however they have a strong track record in keeping sources of information such as OPF up to date and relevant.

We maintain engagement with relevant bodies such as funders and sector representatives which gives some insight into publisher practice. However, this isn’t and will never be 100% nor would it be our place to do so. It is ultimately for institutions and authors to choose appropriate publication venues in respect of the open access requirements of this policy. 

Link to para 6.2.3.

As with REF 2021 the funding bodies do not seek to limit author choice in publication venues chosen. We recognise that for reasons of disciplinary practice, specialism of publication, publication standing, focus, or for other legitimate reasons, authors may identify a particular publication or publishers as the most appropriate.

The submitting institution can determine whether to apply the exception, in consultation with the authors.

Link to para 6.2.3.

Appropriate use of exceptions will not be penalised.

Link to para 9.0.4.

This will be subject to the full audit policy and guidance to be published in 2026. For open access, audit processes will broadly mirror the risk-based approach for REF 2021, subject to further review and potential adjustments. 

8.2.2 can be applied in these circumstances. Alternatively, the “Other” exception could be used if the expectation was that publication would be before 31 December 2025, but publisher delays meant that publication was in 2026 or later.

Links to paras 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 8.1.3, and 8.2.2.

It is for institutions to determine in dialogue with the output’s author(s) whether a publication venue is the most appropriate. Audit and submission guidance is yet to be produced for REF 2029 and so it is not possible at this stage to confirm evidential requirements.

Link to paras 6.4.1 and 8.4.1.

While personal circumstances are within the exceptions cited, this is not the exclusive focus for these exceptions.

The “Other” exception covers a range of circumstances beyond the control of the institution, preventing compliance. For any outputs where this exception is applied there is an effective waiver of open access requirements.

The audit guidance notes that a use of this exception as a high proportion of all exceptions may be a trigger for audit as this may be indicative of underlying issues or an institutional strategy on applying exceptions.

Any audit triggered will seek to assess the appropriateness of the use of the exception (relative to the circumstances) and the extent to which it has been used, rather than assess the circumstances themselves.

This exception operated successfully for REF 2021, remains in place up to the end of 2025 and is replicated in full for the period from January 2026 onwards. Using a risk-based approach in REF 2021, 10 institutions were selected for second stage audit, resulting in four data adjustments, three were selected for substantive sampling and only one output (out of more than 185,000) was adjusted.

The standard provided for (CC-BY-NC-ND) is representative of a standard of openness rather than a specific licensing requirement. Authors/institutions are able to apply any suitable license meeting this level of openness at minimum.

For guidance on the standards this represents please see this information on the Creative Commons website.  

This answer was updated on 15 May 2025.

Updated answer: CC-0, CC-BY, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC-ND licenses, and their equivalents meet the policy requirements. Following review, we can clarify a change in our initial guidance and confirm that SA licensing variants are acceptable.

Original answer: CC-0, CC-BY, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC-ND licenses, and their equivalents meet the policy requirements. “Share Alike (SA)” variants of the licenses do not meet the policy requirements.

This answer was updated on 15 May 2025.

Updated answer: There is no requirement specifically for a CC license; deposited outputs should have a standard of openness at minimum equivalent to CC-BY-NC-ND.

However, where a deposited output AAM is subject to terms of a publication agreement limiting sharing and/or use of downloaded materials, the output does not need to meet the licensing requirements for the purposes of REF 2029, subject to meeting all other conditions for deposit, discovery and access. From 1 January 2029 all future in-scope outputs will need to meet full licensing requirements.

Original answer: There is no requirement specifically for a CC license – the requirement specified is that all deposited outputs to have a standard of openness at minimum the equivalent to CC-BY-NC-ND. Further detail on license requirements will be published in due course

This answer was updated on 15 May 2025.

Updated answer: The open access requirements for output eligibility in REF 2029 can be met via a number of different routes which have varying costs, including at no cost. The funding bodies do not expect it to be necessary to incur publication costs to meet OA requirements.

Original answer: The open access requirements for output eligibility in REF 2029 can be met via a number of different routes which have varying costs. This includes being able to meet these requirements at no cost.

The funding bodies expect that issues across the transition period will apply to a relatively small number of outputs.

One possible example would be an article submitted with an embargo period longer than allowed for under the rules from January 2026 onwards, in the expectation that it would be published by 31 December 2025. Where there are delays in publication beyond this date, this would create a technical non-compliance. The funding bodies consider that this would fall under an exception as being outside the control of the institution and would recommend use of the “Other” exception.

There is no requirement for research underpinning impact case studies to be compliant with the Open Access policy.

The REF team are open to making changes or corrections direct to policy where this is the most appropriate and helpful approach. This is likely to be infrequent and in most cases clarification through guidance and/or FAQ will be the most appropriate way to address issues and concerns.

Where amendments are made to policy text this will be made clear.

Link to paras 6.5.1 and 6.5.2.

Non-volume contributing staff’ and ‘ineligible to be included in the volume measure’ both refer to staff who are not employed on academic Teaching and Research or Research-only contracts.

Yes, books and book chapters are accepted as outputs for submission, there are no OA requirements for these for REF 2029.

The funding bodies encourage as much openness as possible in all outputs submitted, and in institutional practice more broadly, however there are no open access requirements for REF purposes beyond the requirements of the open access policy. Open research practise is likely to be an area of interest for the PCE element of the REF.

Only journal articles and conference proceedings are within the scope of the REF 2029 Open Access Policy. There is no open access requirement for software in REF 2029. Institutions are encouraged to make software available as openly as possible using any appropriate licensing.

This is outlined in paragraph 4.0.2. of the Open Access policy.

Paragraph 5.2.3 applies to any output that has been published through an immediate open access route as a result of a funders requirements (for example, the UKRI open access policy). In these circumstances if the output is compliant with the funders’ requirements, then no further steps are required to be eligible for submission to REF 2029.

Link to para 5.2.3.

If the author/institution is pursuing an immediate OA route for the output that is sufficient for REF eligibility. We wouldn’t consider an output ineligible if a publisher failed to make it available on time.

Links to paras 6.4.1 and 6.3.2.

The pre-January 2026 aspects of policy (that is, the exceptions cited) for the purposes of the policy requirement for REF 2029 “attributed” relates to all members of staff who provide an institution’s demonstrable and substantive connection with the output.

These exceptions were included as carried forward from REF 2021.

If the output is made available as open access through a repository meeting all policy requirements it will be compliant.

This answer is being updated in line with the recently published CKU guidance. We will publish an updated answer as soon as possible.

Supplementary information and data are not part of the open access requirements.

Tolerance is applied at unit level.

Link to 5.6 and 7.8.

The 5% tolerance band for non-compliant outputs is across the submission period as a whole rather than relating to separate periods of before and after policy changes.

Yes, you can apply for multiple roles, but you will only be able to hold one role because the workload is too high and panel dates might clash.

To avoid repetition, you may refer to other sections of your application. If you apply to more than one sub-panel, your sub-panel membership application will be shared with the people assessing for each of them. However, please note that applications for sub-panel member roles and main panel expert roles will need to stand alone and should not be cross referenced.

Main panel chairs, along with soon-to-be-appointed sub-panel chairs, will undertake the complex task of assembling their panels. Each panel chair will take an approach that reflects the structure of their Unit of Assessment (UoA) and to achieve a balance of expertise. Applications may be shared between sub-panel chairs if a candidate’s expertise aligns better with another panel. Learned societies and professional bodies may also be consulted to ensure that panels are composed in a way that maintains the confidence of the academic community.

We will consult with sector bodies where we need to, to ensure that the sub-discipline spread of each UoA is sufficient for the criteria setting.

The assessment criteria are bullet pointed on the form above each section you need to complete.

There is no guidance to weight criteria differently, but assessors will take a holistic view when selecting from top scoring applications.

Yes. We are currently recruiting for the criteria setting phase and we expect that most people we recruit will continue to the assessment phase. However, we will also need to recruit assessors and more panel members for the assessment phase. The recruitment for the assessment phase will likely be at the end of 2027.

The application to be a sub-panel member is primarily about your expertise in the discipline. If you have other expertise in impact or PCE this is good but not essential. The criterion says “Excellent analytical and judgment skills to evaluate research outputs, impact, or people, culture and environment (PCE) submissions effectively”.

Yes, we will be recruiting again for the assessment phase, and you will be able to reapply.

The numbers from REF 2021 are available here, but this will vary for REF 2029. We will not know final numbers until we know more about the size of submissions.

We’re not publishing examples but you may find the advice given at the Town Hall or in Rebecca’s blog useful.

Written endorsements are not required. However, individuals applying to these roles must have the support of their employing organisation for their appointment.

Do not include links. We ask shortlisters not to look at links as applications should be judged on the text alone.

We are looking for all relevant experience as outlined in the application criteria, including both knowledge and practical expertise. While diverse lived experiences are not specifically required, you may choose to highlight them if they are relevant to any of the criteria. We are seeking to achieve a balance between previous REF experience and new panel members. We do not have an exact ratio in mind.

References are neither expected nor encouraged; instead, we want to understand why your knowledge and experience make you a strong candidate for the panel.

The character count does count spaces and punctuation.

Yes, you will just need to be able to demonstrate your experience clearly fits that sub-panel. No connection will be made between your panel application and your institution’s submission.

Applications for sub-panel membership should be aimed at academics in the discipline (sub-panel chairs and disciplinary bodies). For main panel, additional members’ applications will be read by main panel chairs as well as others, such as members of the REF team or Steering Group.

We recommend you wait to apply in the next round as your experience will have grown.

The nature of REF 2029, where expert panels assess the nation’s research, means that conflicts of interest will occur. REF 2029 will manage those conflicts of interest robustly. Instead of listing prohibited activities, panel members will follow the REF 2029 conflict of interest policy, through a structured decision-making approach to managing conflicts of interest appropriately.

Procedures for managing conflicts will be set out by the panel chairs, however actions may include:

• full disclosure to the panel chair
• recusal from specific assessments where impartiality is compromised
• independent review to ensure objective decision-making
• transparent documentation of conflicts

Yes, however conflicts of interest will be managed robustly within the assessment. To ensure impartiality panellists will (after appointment):

• declare all relevant interests to the panel chair
• seek guidance on whether their role in impact support constitutes a conflict of interest
• follow structured mitigation steps, such as independent review processes, to ensure fairness

Panel members are able to use their expert knowledge of REF within their institution, providing it is not privileged information and it is in the public domain.

Yes, retired, or emeritus academics can be panel members. If you retire whilst you are a panel member you can choose to remain on the panel.

This is acceptable and would not present an issue. Conflicts of interest would be reassessed, and the balance of the panel considered to ensure that diverse perspectives are represented. We would recommend early discussion of REF 2029 panel responsibilities with your new employer.

Read about our commitment to diversity and inclusion in REF panels.

We will shortlist based on the evidence provided in your application form. We welcome transferable skills from comparable experiences that may come from different sectors or internationally. We welcome diverse demonstrations of these criteria and recognise that relevant experiences may vary across groups.

We explicitly encourage applications from traditionally underrepresented groups. We use application assessment criteria designed to encourage diverse demonstrations of relevant experiences in recognition that relevant experiences may vary across groups. 

We are surveying applicants for their protected characteristics and will compare the diversity of the applicant pool against the appointed panel members. This will allow us to review our processes and improve them for subsequent rounds of appointment. We developed the diversity survey in consultation with expert EDI groups in the sector. This data will not be used for assessment of applications and will not be available to those shortlisting.

We worked with the REF 2029 People and Diversity Panel (PDAP) to help use inclusive language and criteria in the panel position advertisement and personal specification. This included sections of the advertisement welcoming applications from underrepresented groups. In recognition of diverse experiences, we encourage underrepresented groups to apply for the positions even if they are not certain they meet all the criteria. This aims to overcome some barriers to application experienced by people with certain protected characteristics.

We developed communications strategies that shared the adverts amongst sector groups focussed in improving equality, diversity, and inclusion in the sector.

PDAP provided advice and guidance for the people who shortlisted and made decisions about appointment to help reduce bias in the appointment process.

We will report on the diversity of applicants and appointed panel members, to evaluate the impact of our approach and we will use the findings to inform future rounds of recruitment. 

Main panel expert roles are open to all staff who have experience that meets the application requirements. We want to hear from individuals with varied expertise who can bring unique perspectives to the panels. This includes professional and technical staff who contribute to research as well as those who have experience beyond academia such as those involved in policy work, community-based experience or have lived experiences as well as those with an understanding of diverse research practices, outputs and engagement practice. Applicants with specific expertise in areas like international standards, PCE, impact, or interdisciplinary research, where the expertise does not directly align with a specific discipline or Unit of Assessment (UoA), can apply for a main panel expert role.

Sub-panel member roles are open to practicing researchers in that discipline/UoA. These applicants may also bring additional expertise in areas such as commissioning, applying, or utilising research, as well as expertise in impact, engagement, and people, culture, and environment.

For the assessment phase we will recruit assessors in engagement and impact and PCE to support the sub-panels where needed. These applicants may not be practicing academics but hold expertise in assessing these elements. We encourage applicants from all backgrounds to apply, even if you are not certain that you meet every criterion listed. Research shows that some groups are less likely to apply, for example women and individuals from underrepresented groups may hesitate to apply unless they meet every point. To counteract this and foster diversity, scorers will view the criteria flexibly.

Each main panel will have interdisciplinary experts.

No. The expert roles for the criteria phase are part of the main panels. You can apply to all main panels. If you have a background in one of the main panel areas, you might be better targeting your application to that panel as you can make a clearer case for why you are well suited to the position.

The readers of the application will be looking for your appropriateness to the roles that you apply for. We encourage you to represent your range of skills, as expertise across multiple priorities will be of advantage to panels.

Main panel PCE experts are being recruited now. Additional PCE assessors will be recruited in 2027 for the assessment phase.

All applications will be reviewed as submitted. Experience will be taken into account, but there will be no specific advantage or disadvantage applied to PCE pilot panellists.

Main panel international experts are being recruited now. Additional international assessors may be recruited in 2027 for the assessment phase. The criteria for all roles are in the application when you click to apply.

Interdisciplinary experts only apply to a main panel. Please tick the main panel you wish to be considered for. Tell us why you are a good fit for the role. 

Unfortunately, due to the anticipated number of applications, feedback will not be offered and there is no appeal process. REF is seeking to appoint a representative selection of the community that are qualified for the roles but recognise that there are many qualified people within the community.

Please see our webpage: REF 2029 main and sub-panel recruitment  – REF 2029.

The main panels and sub-panels in the REF 2029 assessment process will work closely together to ensure a cohesive and consistent approach across disciplines. They will develop the assessment criteria and working methods for their respective Units of Assessment (UoAs).

During the assessment phase, sub-panels will conduct detailed reviews of submissions, while main panels will provide oversight and ensure consistency across different sub-panels. Main panels will guide and support sub-panels throughout the process, facilitating regular communication and feedback loops.

Sub-panel members in the criteria phase will be primarily selected on their sub-discipline expertise, in addition to the criteria in the application. Any additional knowledge of impact or PCE is good, but at the criteria phase, we will primarily rely on additional experts to main panels that we are currently recruiting for. Additional expert assessors for sub-panels will be recruited at the assessment phase.

We are committed to ensuring equal opportunities for all panel members and we recognise that individuals may have diverse needs and requirements. We are dedicated to providing reasonable adjustments to support participation.  We will work with you to understand your requirements and make appropriate arrangements. If you are selected, you will work with your panel chair on the reasonable adjustments necessary for you to be able to take part. If you have any questions please contact the REF team directly at info@ref.ac.uk.

These roles are typically expected to be supported by your employing organisation. This means that your work for the REF panels would generally be within the scope of your current employment contract. If you wish to undertake this role outside of your current contract, it would be best to discuss this with your employer to ensure they are supportive and can accommodate this arrangement.

Initial meetings will be in-person rather than hybrid to allow panels to build relationships quickly, making future online meetings easier. However, we are committed to making reasonable adjustments to support a diverse membership of the panels within the context of what we need to deliver.

We will consider career diversity in the final panel composition and we will use this information to understand the composition of panels.

This is something that we will explore further for the assessment phase as the exercise progresses.

The estimated time commitment for REF 2029 panel members is based on the Cost Evaluation Report from REF 2021 and our initial panels planning framework. We recognise that time commitments will vary across the UoAs and we will continue to review this as we move into the assessment phase. The data gathered through the Survey of Submission Intentions (as listed in our Timetable) will help shape sub-panel membership size and workload distribution. We are committed to ensuring a fair and transparent process for all panel members. While we have provided an estimated range of 40 to 60 days on the main and sub-panel recruitment page, this will remain under review as we move towards the assessment phase.

The criteria setting phase will be from summer 2025 to summer 2026, where panels develop the assessment criteria and working methods. The assessment phase is currently planned for winter 2028 to autumn 2029, where the panels assess the submissions. As we approach the assessment phase we will continue to review workload expectations. A clearer understanding of time commitments will emerge once we receive data on submission shapes through the Survey of Submission Intentions in 2027. 

REF meetings will be held in working hours. Some meetings will be held in person, which may require travel, or staying overnight, depending on your distance from the venue. REF in-person meetings will be held in various places around the UK so all panellists should expect to need to travel for some meetings.

We have provided an estimated range of 40 to 60 days. The role will be demanding, comparable in many ways to a full-time job during the intense assessment period. So do think carefully about if and how that commitment might be possible. A crucial step, if you are thinking of applying, is to talk to your employing institution now, to ensure that it is happy for you to apply and willing to support you in practical terms (such as through workload relief/buyout arrangements).

Panel members can have the fees paid directly to them, or they can opt for the fee to be paid to their institution if they don’t wish to accept the fee themselves or wish to speak to their organisation about a buy-out arrangement.

The payment structure for panellists in REF 2029 is a flat fee rather than a daily rate. While institutions have historically been supportive of staff participating in this work, we recognise that financial pressures may make this more challenging this time.

Once we have more clarity on the size of the submission, the panel sizing will reflect that. We recommend that applicants discuss with their institutions whether support can be provided.

You will receive REF related training and a thorough induction to the exercise.

These will be published in autumn 2026 with the final guidance and criteria.

We are finalising the arrangements for scoring methodology for joint submissions and full details will be published in autumn 2026.

Yes, institutions can include teaching-only colleagues in the Statement on Research Community (SoC), where this feels relevant. The draft SPRE panel criteria on the Statement on Research Community confirms that the submitted unit “extends beyond those counted in the volume measure to reflect the wider research community underpinning the research environment” (see CKU guidance paragraph 7.1).

We encourage the inclusion of colleagues in the SoC where those members have contributed to the research environment, been directly supported to undertake research, or where their trajectory towards a contract with research responsibility has been supported.

If a colleague on a teaching-only contract moves to a Teaching and Research contract during the REF period, any outputs during the earlier period become eligible for submission, subject to the relevant continuity and eligibility conditions (see CKU guidance paragraph 6.9).

The CKU guidance also makes allowance for exceptional requests to be made to include outputs by teaching only staff where the HEI can demonstrate it supported the research (see CKU guidance paragraph 6.8).

Paragraph 7.1.6 of the SPRE guidance indicates the statement should describe the numbers and types of roles.  The draft SPRE panel criteria sets out a more flexible approach, asking submitting units to provide a narrative overview of roles and career stages within the unit in the Statement on the Research Community. Where possible, this may include numerical descriptions of roles and career stages over the assessment period. We would welcome views within survey responses on whether this more flexible framing would be helpful.

Sub-panels will not score the absolute volume of funding on its own as part of their assessment of the income, infrastructure and facilities section of SPRE, but will instead consider the volume of funding received in the context of the discipline, size and structure of the unit itself as part of their assessment of this section. The intention is that no units of any particular size will be advantaged or disadvantaged in assessment.

No. These will be published in autumn 2026 with the final guidance and criteria.

SPRE statements will be assessed on two criteria: vitality and sustainability. Critical reflection isn’t a separate scored criterion, but instead is the approach through which HEIs should provide evidence and narrative against the four assessed sections of the statement. As the draft criteria notes, statements should show “balanced reflection… within the context of internal and external change and challenge” and  that “assessors do not expect to see uniform improvement across sections.” A well-reflected account of any issues should strengthen the case for vitality and sustainability, rather than competing with it.

This will be published in autumn 2026 with the final guidance and criteria.

No. This proposed option would only be available to institutions submitting to a single UoA.

Yes, the proposed approach is that this would only be available to units under 10 FTE. We welcome feedback on this proposal in the survey.

Our starting position is that there will only be a small number of cases where the impact of equality-related circumstances materially exceeds what can be accommodated in the existing flexibility offered through the decoupled model in REF 2029, and that this is most likely to be in small units. We welcome views on this issue in responses to the survey.

In the proposed approach in REF 2029 neither early career researchers nor junior clinical academic status would qualify as a circumstance for unit-level reduction requests.
This is due to the changes to output eligibility in REF 2029, where outputs no longer transfer with staff between institutions, addressing potential negative employment incentives for these groups. Feedback on this issue is welcome in responses to the survey.

In developing a proportionate approach to calculating unit reductions, we have sought to strike an appropriate balance in capturing the diversity of potential cases with simplicity and consistency in the method. Where newly established or recently expanded units have a need to request equality-related unit reductions they would be able to evidence the reasons for this within their request. We welcome reflections on this in survey responses.

In addition to the unit-reductions process, for REF 2029, decoupling gives submitting units flexibility in building their output pool rather than tying output submission volume rigidly to individuals whose contracts contribute to the volume measure.

In developing a proportionate approach to calculating unit reductions, we have sought to strike an appropriate balance in capturing the diversity of potential cases with simplicity and consistency in the method. This also maintains consistency with the same data informing the total output requirement. It may be that units feel this data does not reflect their full REF period and they are able to put forward a case for an equality-related reduction.

No. Guidance on small unit exceptions will be published in autumn 2026 with the final guidance and criteria.

As outlined in the published CKU guidance, a double-weighted output would count as two outputs in the submission and therefore counts as two outputs against the recommended maximum of five outputs per substantive link.

The draft criteria for justifying exceeding the maximum are published in the survey supporting information.

Only one substantive link is needed to submit a double-weighted output per submitting unit (that is to say, double-weighted outputs do not need to be co-authored to be submitted to a single UoA). To submit a double-weighted output to more than one unit of assessment, it must be a co-authored output and multiple substantive links would be needed as per the proposal in the survey supporting information. The output would also need to meet the UoA descriptor for each unit to which it is submitted. A double-weighting request could be made and a reserve output submitted for each unit to which the output is submitted where it meets the requirements outlined in the policy for number of substantive links. 

Full details will be published as part of the audit guidance.

That is correct under the proposed approach.

As set out in the Initial Decisions and in the Contributions to Knowledge and Understanding (CKU) guidance (paragraph 13.1), institutions may submit a co-authored output to more than one Unit of Assessment (UoA). This reflects the decoupled REF 2029 model, in which outputs are not tied to individual authors when determining where they are submitted. The policy gives institutions greater flexibility to return outputs in the UoAs where they are most relevant.  The amendment to this policy has been developed to mitigate issues identified during the criteria phase panel meetings. The proposed amendment seeks to improve the robustness, fairness and credibility of the assessment by reducing opportunities for gaming, supporting equitable treatment of different disciplines and institutions, encouraging a broader representation of research activity, and ensuring that results are proportionate to institutional research strength rather than concentrated around a small number of outputs.

Decoupling gives submitting units flexibility in building their output pool rather than tying output submission volume rigidly to individuals whose contracts contribute to the volume measure. Exceeding the five-output guideline is an exception built into the framework (for example, to account for equality-related circumstances or disciplinary norms) to accommodate genuine variation in research capacity.

A sole-authored output has one substantive link, so it can only be submitted to one UoA under the proposal in the survey supporting information, regardless of its interdisciplinary content. Further guidance on interdisciplinary and collaborative research will be published in autumn 2026.

Yes, see CKU guidance paragraph 8 for preliminary information about a significant research contribution. Further details will follow in the panel criteria in autumn 2026.

That is correct under the proposed approach, providing the output meets the unit descriptors for all five units.

Details on the approach for cross-referral will be published in autumn 2026.

The panels have been considering the balance of precision and burden in providing quantitative data for SPRE as part of the criteria phase. We welcome views on this within this section of the survey and full details will be available in final guidance and criteria in the autumn.

The REF team will extract the relevant PhD completions data and issue it to institutions for checking and verification. Institutions will then be able to allocate this data against the appropriate UoA as part of that verification exercise, rather than through a HESA amendment. Full details will be published in autumn 2026. This is a REF system process, rather than a HESA process, and would therefore not incur any fee. This mirrors the established approach for other standard data (such as research income), where institutions receive HESA-derived figures and confirm or adjust the UoA allocation  within the REF 2029 system, rather than amending the underlying student or finance record itself.

Under the draft approach in the survey, this final year of the assessment period would be removed from the requirement entirely; it would not be collected from institutions in any form, whether as verified data or a provisional self-reported figure. It is envisaged that this final year of data could instead be captured in a future research assessment exercise.

We’d welcome views on the proposed approach as set out in Section E of the survey document, including whether the absence of a narrative option for this data is a concern, before the survey closes on 4 September 2026. Note: This is distinct from income-in-kind (formerly REF4c), which is being discontinued as a quantitative data requirement but remains valued as a narrative indicator. As stated in the draft proposal, where income-in-kind is relevant to a unit’s research, it can still be described within the income, infrastructure and facilities section of the SPRE statement.

Feedback on the costs and benefits to the proposed approach are welcome in the survey.

Outputs, SPRE statements, the volume measure and SPRE quantitative data have associated timeframes appropriate to the submission requirements for that aspect of the assessment.

Outputs and impact case studies: must be first made publicly available between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2028 (see CKU guidance paragraph 6.2).

SPRE: covers the period 1 August 2020 to 31 July 2028 (See – SPRE guidance, paragraph 6.0.2 and paragraph 7.0.3).

Volume measure: based on HESA Staff record data, calculated by averaging CONFTE of volume-contributing contracts across the 2025-26 and 2026-27 academic years (See Volume Measure guidance, paragraph 3.0.4).

SPRE quantitative data (research doctoral degrees and research income): currently drawn from HESA for all years up to and including the penultimate year, 2020-21 to 2026-27. The proposal in the survey to remove the final year (2027-28) from this requirement is under consultation (Section E, survey document, “E.1 Background” and “E.2 Proposed approach”).

Sub-panels will not score the absolute volume of funding or doctoral degrees awarded, but will instead consider this data in the context of the discipline, size and structure of the unit itself as part of their assessment of this section. The intention is that no units of any particular size will be advantaged or disadvantaged in assessment.

That is correct under the proposed approach, this only applies to UoA 12.

The approach is proposed for UoA 12 only and was not felt to be of benefit by the other panels.

We will analyse responses and use them to work with the panels on finalising the Guidance and Criteria.

We welcome both organisational and individual responses. Institutions, representative bodies and other organisations are encouraged to submit a single, coordinated response where that’s feasible, as this can help surface broader system-level issues and implementation risks. However, we recognise that coordinating an institutional response over the summer period won’t be possible for every HEI, and individual responses are just as welcome.

We will read, record and analyse every response we receive. As with previous REF engagement exercises, our approach is based on the strength and substance of the arguments made, rather than the number of times a point is raised.

Where responses come from those with a direct stake in a particular proposal, or who are likely to be most affected by it, we would expect these to carry particular weight in that specific area, reflecting their practical experience of implementation. This applies equally whether the response comes from an individual or an organisation.

We recognise that not every suggestion will be reflected in the final guidance, but every response will be considered as part of this process.

We are on track for publication in autumn 2026.