What we’re looking for in the new REF guidance
In mid-November, the new REF 2029 guidance is expected to be published. We’ve been talking to the research community about the questions they’d most like answered.
We’ve identified 15 questions to investigate when we finally get our hands on the guidance, covering everything from the assessment of not-traditionally submitted outputs (NTOs) to research culture, AI and institutional practices.
If you have anything to add or amend in our list, please let us know.
Fifteen questions for the new REF guidance
Click on the sections below to expand and review our questions.
01 | NTOs and fair assessment
Recognition of NTOs
Does the guidance support submission and fair assessment of NTOs?
What we’re looking for: explicit mentions of NTOs; equal treatment of output types; changes to eligibility; guidance and examples for software, datasets, technical and creative outputs; awareness of barriers beyond formal eligibility.
Eligibility and research-enabling roles
Is there more detail on which roles are expected to submit outputs?
What we’re looking for: mentions of eligible roles; attribution to people and institutions; RSEs, technicians, data professionals; collaborative outputs.
The 300-word statement
Has the guidance been clarified about the purpose of the 300-word statement and how institutions should use it?
What we’re looking for: mandatory versus optional use; permitted context; whether originality, significance or rigour may be discussed; differences between UoAs; examples; advice for internal assessors.
Multicomponent outputs
How can NTOs include enough explanatory material to communicate their research? Is there guidance on using multicomponent outputs for this purpose?
What we’re looking for: explanatory documentation around multi-component outputs; other solutions to providing supporting description.
Panel specific guidance
How consistent are assessment practices across panels? What are the differences across panels?
What we’re looking for: central, main-panel and sub-panel guidance; carve-outs; new exceptions; differences in definitions, examples and requirements.
The 100-word statements in UoA 11 and 12
Will UoA 11 and 12 maintain their additional 100-word statements?
What we’re looking for: new UoA-specific statements; standardisation across panels.
Citation data
Will the use of citation data change?
What we’re looking for: permitted citation information; panel differences; institutional use of metrics; relevance to NTOs.
02 | SPRE and research culture
SPRE indicators and pilot lessons
Which indicators from the PCE pilot are retained?
What we’re looking for: retained, amended or removed indicators; data burden; institutional size; qualitative versus quantitative evidence.
Institutional and unit-level SPRE
How do institutional and unit-level requirements interact?
What we’re looking for: allocation of responsibility; evidence of institutional policies in units; connections to CKU.
Representativeness and fairness
What constitutes a representative submission?
What we’re looking for: definitions applying to people, outputs and research activities; diversity of output types; DORA/CoARA principles; consistency across CKU and SPRE.
Progress versus absolute performance
How will improvement be recognised?
What we’re looking for: retention of the pilot’s progress principle; baselines; size and resources.
Staff mobility, institutional change and portability
How does REF accommodate a changing sector?
What we’re looking for: output portability; staff arrivals/departures and role changes; redundancies; restructuring; implications for CKU and SPRE.
03 | Assessment processes
Artificial intelligence in REF assessment
What uses of AI are permitted?
What we’re looking for: AI in contextual statements, submission preparation, internal assessment and REF panel work; main/sub-panel differences; transparency and oversight.
Guidance for institutional assessors and researchers
Is the guidance clear enough to apply?
What we’re looking for: practical examples; requirements versus options; internal assessment exercises; unfamiliar outputs; unnecessary institutional restrictions.
Other technical provisions
What other relevant rules have changed?
What we’re looking for: double-weighting; interdisciplinary outputs; multiple institutions or UoAs; supporting evidence and links; long-form outputs; attribution.
What happens next?
We’ll be running a live broadcast of What the REF?! where our hosts will deal with the unenviable task of reading and interpreting the REF 2029 guidance in real time. We don’t know when the guidance will drop, so keep an eye on YouTube, Linkedin and BlueSky for links.