FAQs

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 has been included as carried forward from REF 2021. However, decisions are still to be taken on portability within REF 2029, and this should not be taken at this stage as indicative of a decision on portability.

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/unit of assessment. 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.