Section 6 – Engagement and Impact guidance

Overview

This guidance outlines the scope of Engagement and Impact (E&I) within REF 2029.

It provides guidance on the nature and assessment of E&I. It covers:

• Key changes in REF 2029
• Definitions of impact and engagement for the purposes of the REF
• How impact will be assessed and the number of impact case studies (ICS) required per FTE
• Eligibility periods for ICS and how these relate to continued ICS
• Definition and examples of underpinning research and the process for requesting eligibility for underpinning research in the context of structural change
• The guidance for the completion of the ICS submission template including the required contextual information and substantive content
• Overview of the arrangements for ICS that include confidential information
• Details of the additional data requirements for ICS underpinned by funded research

Introduction

The Engagement and Impact (E&I) element of REF 2029 captures the wider societal benefits created through the submitting unit’s research practices. It is assessed through impact case studies (ICS).

Impact was introduced in REF 2014 to reflect the opportunity higher education institutions (HEIs) have to generate new knowledge that is impactful and actionable, and to provide accountability for how public funds for research benefit the wider society. Since the introduction of the impact component to the REF, HEIs have increasingly shown how their quality research leads to demonstrable benefits for society in many different spheres.

The E&I guidance for REF 2029 seeks to offer continuity with REF 2021 comprising assessment based on the significance and reach of ICS. REF 2029 will maintain the REF 2021 submission template structure for ICS.

The initial decisions for this exercise outlined an intention to continue this evolution, encouraging more of the good practice seen within some ICS in previous REFs, namely the conceptualisation of engagement that supports the generation of impact, and discussion of the responsible practices that underpin ethical impact (previously discussed as rigour). These ideas were further developed at the REF 2029 E&I Policy Deep Dive, which generated valuable insight and direction on how to implement them. To limit the overall degree of change for this exercise, it has been decided to use this work to highlight to HEIs how ICS may be strengthened through discussion of engagement and responsible practices within the current template, rather than changing the template or adding additional mandatory elements. 

As in REF 2021, REF 2029 will continue to assess and value, through the strategy, people, and research environment (SPRE) statements, strategies, support, structures and cultures that encourage and enable impact generation.

Key changes in REF 2029

Underpinning research quality

The 2* quality threshold for underpinning research has been removed to recognise that excellent impact can also result from research that does not meet the 2* threshold.

Previously, research underpinning ICS was required to meet a 2* research quality threshold. This requirement was deemed to be burdensome, exclusive of valuable local research and impact and limiting to the diversity of the underpinning research.

The research underpinning ICS now only needs to meet the REF definition of research.

Reduction to the minimum number of ICS

The number of ICS required is based on the volume measure for the unit, with the number required relating to interval brackets of FTE.

For units in the smallest bracket of <9.99 FTE, the number of ICS required has been reduced to one.

Although we encourage units to submit two, the option to submit either one or two ICS for this bracket has been introduced to allow small units to tailor their submission to their strengths. If two ICS are submitted, both will be scored and contribute equally to the quality profile.

Submission system

All ICS will be entered directly into the Submission system.

There will be a hard word limit of 2,200 words overall for the three substantive sections – summary of impact, underpinning research and details of impact. This is based on analysis that suggests that the average number of words usually fitted into the five-page limit was about 2,000 and offering a limit that exceeds the average. We encourage brevity but recognise cases will vary in length based on context.

Opportunity for recognition of diverse contributors

Many people in diverse roles within institutions facilitate engagement and contribute to the generation of impact, yet these contributions have not always been visible. The ICS template in the submission system now provides space to recognise and celebrate the full range of contributors to the ICS including, where relevant, students, impact and engagement professionals or research technical professionals. Institutions are encouraged to use this opportunity to highlight the breadth of excellence that underpins E&I, across all roles and career stages. There is no word limit for this section, and it is not assessed.

Encouragement to discuss engagement strategies and responsible practices

It is recognised that some previous excellent ICS included specific discussion of research engagement strategies and/or evidence of responsible practices that enhanced their reach and/or significance, However, consultation has revealed that some units were cautious to include such ICS as these details were not specifically asked for in the template. This led to potentially excellent ICS, where engagement or responsible practices were central to achieving impact, not being submitted.

REF 2029 wishes to celebrate diverse types of impact and explicitly welcomes, in either the underpinning research or evidence of impact sections of the template, narratives expressing research engagement across the lifecycle of research. Narratives may also include specific consideration of appropriate responsible practices and use relevant qualitative evidence.  

The sub-panels will provide further guidance on how they will recognise more explicitly the contribution of engagement to impact within the existing criteria so that HEIs can have more confidence to include diverse ICS. The advisory panels will work with the sub-panels to ensure consistent recognition of appropriate engagement strategies and responsible practices across all UoAs. Full details will be published in the Panel criteria and working methods and will be summarised here.

Definition of impact

Impact is defined as an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia.

Impact includes, but is not limited to, an effect on, change or benefit to:

• the activity, attitude, awareness, behaviour, capacity, opportunity, performance, policy, practice, process or understanding
• of an audience, beneficiary, community, constituency, organisation or individuals
• in any geographic location whether locally, regionally, nationally or internationally

Impact includes the reduction or prevention of harm, risk, cost or other negative effects.

For the purposes of the impact element of the REF:

• academic impacts on research or the advancement of academic knowledge (whether in the UK or internationally) are excluded. (The submitting unit’s contribution to academic research and knowledge is assessed within the CKU and SPRE elements of REF)
• impacts on students, teaching, professional practice or other activities both within and/or beyond the submitting HEI are included. The Panel criteria will set out the panels’ expectations for impact in this area and will be linked here

Definition of engagement

For the purposes of the REF, engagement is defined as an interaction between the HEI and relevant individuals, groups, communities, organisations, the public, commercial partners, or policy makers, that is purposeful, responsible, and context appropriate.

Engagement includes, but is not limited to:

• reciprocal flows of knowledge, understanding, or skills including planned or spontaneous relationships that inform research, build trust, influence practice or policy, and/or support public participation
• activities that are accountable to affected communities and funders
• varied disciplinary practices that may directly or indirectly contribute to wider societal, economic, cultural, or environmental benefits (impact)

Engagement practices recognise the value of researchers providing resource, information and guidance to the stakeholders of research, being accountable to both the communities that their research affects and those who fund the research.

Impact assessment

Each submission must include ICS describing specific impacts that have occurred during this REF period that were underpinned by research undertaken in the submitting unit.

Impacts will be assessed in terms of their ‘reach and significance’ regardless of the geographic location in which they occurred, whether locally, regionally, nationally or internationally. The UK funding bodies expect that many impacts will contribute to the economy, society and culture within the UK or within nations or regions of the UK and value these equally to the international contribution of UK research.

The focus of the assessment is the impact of the submitting unit’s research, not the impact of individuals or individual research outputs, although they may contribute to the evidence of the submitting unit’s impact.

Panels will assess all the evidence provided in the submitted ICS and will form an impact sub-profile for each submitting unit. Panels will apply their expert judgement based on all the information provided in the ICS, before confirming the impact sub-profiles.

The Panel criteria will provide further guidance in relation to how the panels will assess the ICS against the criteria of reach and significance and the kinds of impact that the panels would anticipate from research across the UoAs. This guidance will not be restrictive, and any impact that meets the general definition will be eligible. The Panel criteria will be linked here.

Number of ICS in a submission

The number of ICS required in each submission will be determined by the volume measure for the unit as set out in the table.

Volume measure (FTE)	Number of ICS
Up to 9.99 (option 1)	1
Up to 9.99 (option 2)	2
10 to 19.99	2
20 to 39.99	3
40 to 59.99	4
60 to 89.99	5
90 to 119.99	6
120 to 169.99	7
170 or more	8, plus one more further ICS per additional 50 FTE

Submitting units <9.99 FTE may choose whether to submit one or two ICS. If two ICS are submitted, both will be scored and contribute equally to the quality profile. 

When considering whether to submit one or two ICS, HEIs with small units should be mindful of the potential consequences that submitting one ICS may have on individuals. In most cases, we encourage units to submit two but are allowing a minimum of one for units where this is necessary.

If a submission includes fewer than the required number of ICS, a grade of unclassified will be awarded to each required ICS that is not submitted.

Submissions may not include more than the required number of ICS. Institutions should select the strongest examples of impact that are underpinned by the submitting unit’s research and should explain within the SPRE statement how the selected ICS relate to the submitting unit’s approach to enabling impact from its research.

Submissions will not be expected to provide ICS that are representative of the spread of research activity across the whole submitting unit.

Eligibility period for ICS

Each ICS must provide details of a specific impact(s) that:

• meets the definition of impact for the REF
• occurred during the eligible period for impact: 1 August 2020 to 31 July 2028. In REF 2021 there was an optional COVID extension for impact, allowing impact to be claimed until 31 December 2020. Any impacts which occurred during that window and were submitted to the REF 2021 exercise cannot be submitted again unless provided as context for cases meeting the requirements to be submitted as continuing ICS
• was underpinned by research produced by the submitting unit in the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2028

The impacts may have been at any stage of development or maturity during the eligible period, so long as some effect, change or benefit meeting the definition of impact took place during that period. This may include, for example, impacts at an early stage, or impacts that may have started prior to the eligible period but continued into the eligible period.

ICS will be assessed in terms of the reach and significance of the impact that occurred only during the period, and not in terms of any impact prior to this period or potential future or anticipated impact after this period.

ICS continued from REF 2014 and 2021

Continued ICS recognise the ongoing impact from past research. If the impact of underpinning research reported for 2014 or 2021 has continued into this REF period, evidence for this can be submitted as a continued ICS.

ICS are continued if both:

• the body of underpinning research is the same as described in a REF 2014 and/or REF 2021 ICS. This should not be understood solely in relation to the referenced outputs, but means that the continued ICS does not describe any new research having taken place since the previous ICS that has made a distinct and material contribution to the impact and
• the new impact described for this REF period significantly overlaps with the impact described in the 2014 or 2021 ICS, so that the impact types and beneficiaries are broadly the same

An ICS will be considered new where:

• additional underpinning research has taken place since that described in the previous ICS, which has made a distinct and material contribution to the impact, and/or
• the impact types or beneficiaries have changed or are new

Continuing ICS submitted in REF 2029 must meet the same eligibility criteria as other ICS for REF 2029, including the length of the window for underpinning research and the window for the impact described. Where impacts were submitted as part of the extended REF 2021 COVID window (1 August 2020 to 31 December 2020), an ICS will be counted as a continuing ICS for REF 2029 only if that impact continues beyond 31 December 2020.

Submitting units will be required to identify continued ICS in the Submission system. This information will be made available to sub-panels and will be used by the funding bodies in post-assessment evaluations.

The Panel criteria will set out further information about the main panels’ expectations and their approach to assessing continued ICS. This will be published in the Panel criteria and will be summarised here.

Underpinning research

Each ICS must describe the underpinning research, include references to one or more key research outputs and explain how that research underpinned or contributed to the impact.

Underpinning research may be a body of work produced over a number of years or may be the output(s) of a particular project.

Underpinning research may be produced by one or more individuals in one or more research groups, units, or HEIs.

Eligibility of underpinning research outputs

To be eligible for assessment as an impact, the impact described in an ICS must have been underpinned by research produced by the submitting unit, during the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2028.

This research must be evidenced by outputs referenced in the ICS that align with the UoA descriptor for the submitting unit and were produced by the submitting HEI.

Underpinning research outputs may include the full range of output types listed in the output glossary and are not limited to printed academic work.

The research outputs may, but need not, have been submitted to a previous REF or to the current REF.

These research outputs must have first been brought into the public domain during the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2028 or, if a confidential report or other output, lodged with the body to whom it is confidential during this same period.

Panels will consider if the underpinning research meets the REF definition of research. Further guidance, developed with support from the Research Diversity Advisory Panel, will be published as part of the Panel criteria in 2026 and linked here.

Eligibility of underpinning research activity

‘Research produced by the submitting unit’ means that staff carried out the underpinning research within the scope of the relevant UoA descriptor, while working in the submitting HEI (even if those staff have since left):

• the staff may, but need not, have been submitted to a previous RAE/REF
• the staff may, but need not, be employed on a volume contributing contract or on a contract that constitutes an eligible employment relationship for REF 2029

Eligible underpinning research may also be produced by staff working in the submitting HEI, who may be unpaid, but who are employed or engaged by an organisation other than the HEI, provided that:

• their contract or job role (as documented by their employer) includes the undertaking of research, and
• their research was clearly focused in the submitting unit at the time the underpinning research was produced

For example, these individuals may be from the NHS, national or local government, a Research Council unit or Public Sector Research Establishment, a charity, community or voluntary organisation, business or similar, UK based or international.

In all cases it must be clear and demonstrable that the individual carried out the underpinning research while working as a member of staff in the submitting HEI.

More than one submitting unit (within the same HEI and/or in different HEIs) may include the same impact within their respective ICS. The requirement is that each submitting unit must have produced research aligning to their UoA that made a distinct and material contribution to the impact. Where this is the case, units may provide common descriptions of the impact arising.

Impacts must be submitted in the REF UoA that aligns to the underpinning research. There is an exception to allow submission of ICS with underpinning research from a cognate UoA where researchers have been grouped to make a viable submission. This exception is solely for submitting units smaller than 9.99 FTE.

Exclusions

Research undertaken solely by research students is not considered as having been carried out by staff while working in the submitting HEI.

Research undertaken solely by individuals employed by other HEIs, for example visiting professors, fellows and lecturers, is not considered to have been carried out by the submitting unit.

Research produced by current members of the submitting unit before they joined the HEI may not be used as underpinning research as it was not produced by the submitting unit. In this case, the HEI where the underpinning research was produced may submit the impact.

Structural change affecting underpinning research

Where a submitting HEI is the result of a merger between former HEIs, the submitting HEI can submit impacts from the research undertaken by the former, now merged, HEIs.

Where a submitting HEI has taken over a research unit – whether from another HEI or from elsewhere – the submitting HEI can submit impacts from research that was undertaken by the absorbed unit before it became part of the submitting HEI, with prior agreement from the relevant UK funding body. Prior agreement must be sought by providing details of the nature of the research unit and of when and how it became part of the submitting HEI, to info@ref.ac.uk, no later than 30 June 2028. The REF team will liaise with the relevant funding body and communicate the decision to the HEI. In each case, the funding bodies will take into consideration whether a distinct unit was absorbed by the submitting HEI in its entirety, and the extent to which there has been genuine structural change.

For clarity, these arrangements only apply to units and do not apply to impacts from research carried out by individuals before they joined the submitting HEI. 

Definition of ‘underpinned by’

‘Underpinned by’ means that the research made a distinct and material contribution to the impact taking place, such that the impact would not have occurred or would have been significantly reduced without the contribution of that research.

REF 2029 recognises that real-world impacts are often more complex, unpredictable, and serendipitous than a simple linear model from research to impact and accepts that the relationship between research and impact can be indirect or non-linear.

Each ICS must explain how (through what means) the research led to or contributed to the impact and include appropriate sources of information external to the HEI to corroborate these claims.

Where the panel judges that the submitting unit’s research did not make a distinct and material contribution to the impact, the ICS will be graded as unclassified.

Examples of ‘underpinning’

There are many ways in which research may have underpinned impact. These examples of ‘underpinning’ are illustrative but not exhaustive.

Research that contributed directly or indirectly to an impact. For example, a submitting unit’s research may have informed research in another submitting unit (whether in the same or another HEI), which in turn led to an impact. In this case, both submitting units may show that their research made a distinct and material contribution to the impact.

Bodies of work produced over a number of years, or in output(s) of a particular project, conducted by one or more individuals, teams or groups, within one or more submitting units that led to or underpinned an impact. More than one submitting unit (within the same HEI or in different HEIs) may include the same impact within their respective ICS, so long as each submitting unit produced research aligning to their UoA that made a distinct and material contribution to the impact.

Impacts on, for example, public awareness, attitudes, understanding or behaviour that arose from engaging the relevant individuals, groups, communities, organisations, the public, commercial partners, or policy makers with research. In these cases, the submitting unit must show that the engagement activity was, at least in part, based on the submitting unit’s research and drew materially and distinctly upon it. The further guidance and examples that were set out in the REF 2021 ‘Panel criteria’ Annex A, Examples of impacts and indicators, will be updated and expanded by the Research Diversity Advisory Panel and published with the panel criteria.

Impacts arising from engagement with stakeholders before, after or during the research, including co-produced research, engagement and impact.

Researchers that impacted on others through the provision of professional advice or expert testimony. In such a case, the submitting unit must show that the researcher’s appointment to their advisory role, or the specific advice given, was at least in part based on the submitting unit’s research and drew materially and distinctly upon it.

Research that led to impact through its deliberate exploitation by the HEI or through its exploitation by others. The submitting HEI need not have been involved in exploiting the research but must show that its research made a distinct and material contribution to the impact.

ICS submission template: contextual information

For REF 2029, ICS will be completed directly in the Submission system, in the same format as the template for REF 2021.

The ICS, the sources and any redacted materials should be submitted together before the submission deadline.

All ICS will require:

• title of the ICS
• period when the underpinning research was undertaken (within the eligible timeframe)
• names of staff conducting the underpinning research from the submitting unit and roles (for example, job titles) at the time when the underpinning research was conducted
• period when staff involved in the underpinning research were employed by the submitting HEI
• period when the claimed impact occurred
• whether the ICS is continued from an ICS submitted for REF 2014, REF 2021, or both

There will be extra space to optionally recognise additional contributors to the impact creation (research, technical, professional, partner), with short role descriptors. Any past or present member of staff or student who has contributed significantly to the ICS can be listed, regardless of their eligibility for any other aspect of REF. This data is purely for recognition and will not be shared with panels or used for assessment. REF 2029 wishes to celebrate all contributions to impact, so the names and roles of these contributors, if provided, will be published alongside the names of the individuals who produced the underpinning research in the ICS database.

Submitting units should ensure that those that will be listed as either producers of the underpinning research, or those that enabled the impact, are aware that their names will be published if submitted. Institutions should only include additional contributors who consent to be published.

All information fields in the Submission system are mandatory except the optional section for contributors to impact creation and the additional data requirements for funded research.

There will be no word limit to the following sections:

• details of the staff conducting the underpinning research
• references to the research (maximum six)
• sources to corroborate the impact (maximum 10)
• optional details of contributors to impact creation

References

This section should provide a maximum of six references to key outputs from the research described in the section ‘Underpinning research’.

Underpinning research outputs may include the full range of types that will be listed in the output glossary and are not limited to printed academic work. All forms of output cited as underpinning research will be considered equitably, with no one type of output being preferred over others.

All outputs cited in this section that can be made available to panels must be made available to panels. If they are not available in the public domain or submitted for assessment as part of CKU, and are not classified, the HEI must be able to upload the output, or a photographic/ visual/ audio/ other record of output or the research process that underpins the impact, or details of how it can be appropriately accessed. 

The following details or equivalent should be included for each piece of underpinning research. In many cases these will be research outputs, but they may also be grant details or projects:

• relevant author(s) or producer(s)
• title
• year of publication or relevant date of production
• type of output and other relevant details required to identify the output and access it

Sources to corroborate the impact

This section should list sufficient sources that could corroborate key claims made about the impact of the unit’s research.

The sources should be external to the submitting HEI and should provide corroboration of specific claims made in the ICS.

These could include, as appropriate to the ICS (stating which claim each source provides corroboration for):  

• reports, reviews, web links or other documented sources of information in the public domain 
• confidential reports or documents
• individual users/beneficiaries who could be contacted to corroborate claims
• factual statements already provided to the HEI by key users/beneficiaries that corroborate specific claims made in the ICS

Sources provided in this section should not be a substitute for providing clear evidence of impact in the ‘Details of impact’ narrative.

The REF panels will provide guidance in the ‘Panel criteria’ about the kinds of evidence and indicators of impact they would consider appropriate. This guidance will not be exhaustive. The guidance will be linked here.

Institutions may include URLs in ICS only for the purpose of verifying or corroborating claims made in the submission. Panels will not follow URLs to access additional evidence or information to supplement the submission.

The maximum number of sources is 10, but it is anticipated that many ICS may not need 10. The maximum has been kept as 10 in case this number is needed for some types of impact. For example, it is not anticipated that more than one testimonial per organisation will be necessary.

The information in this section will be used for audit purposes only. It will be made available to panels via panel-instigated audit. We will also audit a proportion of ICS and will examine these sources during that process.

Where the sources are individuals who could be contacted or have provided factual statements to the HEI, this section should state only the organisation (and, if appropriate, the position) of the individuals concerned, and which claim(s) they can corroborate.

The personal details of individuals to be contacted (name, position, contact details) must be entered separately on the REF Submission system. This data will not be published as part of the submission.

A maximum of five individuals may be entered as sources for each ICS. Five is a maximum, not a required target.

HEIs may submit corroborating evidence in any language. If the corroborating evidence is a pre-existing document not available in English, the HEI should return the document in its original language and state what language it is in. The expertise of specialist advisers with the relevant language skills will be used if corroboration through these sources is required.

Corroborating contacts should be given only for people that can be communicated with in English.

ICS submission template: substantive content

The remaining sections allow HEIs to clearly explain and demonstrate the impact of their research through a narrative that includes indicators and evidence as appropriate to the case being made, and in a format that is suitable for panels to assess them.

The further guidance and examples that were set out in the REF 2021 ‘Panel criteria’ Annex A, Examples of impacts and indicators, will be updated and expanded by the Research Diversity Advisory Panel and published with the panel criteria and linked here.

The substantive content fields of the ICS will be limited to a hard maximum of 2,200 words over the three content narratives: Summary of the Impact, Underpinning body of research and Details of the Impact. However, to minimise burden, we encourage brevity and 2,200 is a limit not a target.

Each ICS should include sufficiently clear and detailed information to enable panels to make judgements based on the information it contains, without making inferences, gathering additional material, following up references or relying on members’ prior knowledge. References to other sources of information will be used for verification purposes only, not as a means for panels to gather further information to inform judgements.

The information provided in an ICS may be presented in any form the institution considers to be appropriate. This may include tables and non-text content (for example, diagrams, images).

Graphs, charts and diagrams can be included within text narratives and will not affect the word count.

When presenting numeric data, submitting units are strongly encouraged to adhere to the guidelines set out in the ‘Guidelines for standardising quantitative indicators of impact within REF ICS’. This will enable more effective analysis of the data in post-assessment evaluations.

Summary of the impact

Suggested word count 100 words.

Summary of the impact should briefly state what specific impact is being described in the ICS.

Underpinning research

Suggested word count 600 words.

This section should outline the key research insights, findings, practices or methods that underpinned the impact, and provide details of what research was undertaken, when, and by whom.

This research may be a body of work produced over a number of years or may be from a single project. References to specific research insights, findings, practices or methods that embody the research described in this section should be provided in the References section.  

Details of the following should be provided in this section:

• the nature of the research insights, findings, practices or methods which relate to the impact claimed in the ICS
• an outline of what the underpinning research produced by the submitting unit was (this may relate to one or more research outputs, projects or programmes)
• any relevant key contextual information about this area of research, including, if applicable, information on engagement activities that are intrinsic to the research process 

If discussing engagement as part of the research, please use more of the total word count for this section as necessary.

Details of the impact

Suggested word count 1500 words.

This section should provide a narrative, with supporting evidence, to explain: 

• how the research underpinned (made a distinct and material contribution to) the impact, including any engagement activities that enabled the impact, where applicable
• the nature and extent of the impact

The following should be provided: 

• a clear explanation of the process or means through which the research led to, underpinned or made a contribution to the impact (for example, how it was disseminated, how it came to influence users or beneficiaries, or how it came to be exploited, taken up or applied)
• where the submitting unit’s research was part of a wider body of research that contributed to the impact (for example, where there has been research collaboration with other institutions), the ICS should specify the particular contribution of the submitting unit’s research and acknowledge other key research contributions
• details of the beneficiaries – who or what community, constituency or organisation has benefitted, been affected, impacted on or co-created with
• details of the nature and significance of the impact – how the beneficiaries have benefitted, been affected, impacted, empowered or enabled
• evidence or indicators of the extent of the impact described, as appropriate to the case being made
• dates of when these impacts occurred

The following may be included if relevant and considered to enhance the reach or significance of the impact: 

• the engagement strategy and activities that enabled impact
• any relevant indicators of responsible practices that enabled, sustained or enhanced the engagement or the impact   

ICS that include confidential information

HEIs should have confidence to submit ICS that include confidential information with the agreement of the relevant organisation(s).

ICS with confidential material may only be submitted if the HEI has prior permission from the sponsoring organisation. HEIs will confirm permission has been secured when they make submissions.

Confidential ICS

Confidential ICS and confidential underpinning research will only be shared with the REF team and those involved in the assessment process.

All panel members, assessors, observers and the panel secretariat are bound by a confidentiality agreement. Therefore, it should be possible for HEIs to submit confidential reports without compromising any duty of confidentiality upon them.

Where there are main or sub-panel members or assessors who HEIs believe would have a conflict of interest in assessing specific ICS, HEIs can identify these when making submissions, and the ICS will not be made available to such individuals.

To protect panel members from potentially inappropriate exposure to intellectual property, sub-panel chairs may identify specific panel members who should not have access to, or should have access only to the redacted versions of, specific ICS that include commercially sensitive information.

When making submissions, HEIs can identify specific ICS that either should not be published at all due to their confidential nature, or that should be redacted prior to publication. Submitted ICS identified as ‘not for publication’ or the elements for ‘redaction’ will be destroyed by the REF team once no longer required for assessment purposes. The submissions guidance will further outline the data security measures and deletion schedule. The Panel criteria will address the panel procedures for confidential material, and these will be linked here.

ICS with a Government Security Classification

The REF team is working with the UK government to create a secure pathway for submissions that are classified. This includes ICS. This process adapts arrangements from REF 2021.

Assessors of these materials will require appropriate security clearance. The wider REF assessor pool will have sufficient membership with security clearance to ensure calibration between the assessment of classified and unclassified ICS. 

The special requests guidance will outline how to request permission to submit ICS and underpinning research requiring security clearance. The full guidance and processes will be published in 2026 and will be linked here.

In brief, the submitting HEI must request advance permission from the REF director to submit such ICS. The broad nature of the research and/or impact, the level of sensitivity of the intended material, and the level of clearance required of individuals to whom the full ICS could be made available should be provided.

Permission will be granted to submit such ICS where the REF director considers, having consulted the relevant panel chairs, that:

• the confidentiality arrangements outlined in section 11.1 above are insufficient to enable the institution to submit the ICS in the normal way for assessment by the panel and
• it is practicable to identify existing panellists or appoint additional assessors who have the appropriate clearance and expertise, and do not have direct conflicts of interest, to assess the material

Where permission is granted, arrangements will be made for the ICS to be made available securely.  Only the outline information will be made available to the panel and no details about these ICS will be published.

HEIs must allow sufficient time for such ICS to go through the relevant organisation’s internal release processes.

Additional ICS data requirements

The Submission system will provide space to submit additional data on any funding that enabled the underpinning research.

This data is only mandatory if the underpinning research has been funded by an organisation external to the HEI and will not be routinely provided to panels.

The information provided in these fields will facilitate the use and analysis of ICS following the end of the exercise, rather than in the assessment process itself. It will enable research funders to track and evaluate the impact of their funding.

Where applicable, submitting units are required to complete the following additional contextual data fields:

• name(s) of funder(s)
• Research Organisation Registry (ROR) identifier
• name(s) of funding programme(s)
• grant number(s)
• amount of grant (in British pounds)
• ORCID for each named researcher, where held
• name(s) of formal partner(s)
• country/countries/specific UK nation where the impact occurred