Research staff will not be obliged to submit outputs to the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) as part of the biggest shake-up of the UK¡¯s national research audit in its history.

The exercise, which is used to distribute about ?2 billion annually in block-grant research funding, will no longer require a minimum number of submissions from every research-active member of staff assessed by the REF, Research England has confirmed.

In the?2021 exercise, those with research responsibilities had to submit at least one research output and could enter a maximum of five outputs, with institutions required to submit an average of 2.5 outputs per researcher for each unit of assessment. In 2014, researchers who were chosen by their institutions for participation had to submit four outputs from a six-year period in the absence of mitigating circumstances ¨C a demand that many believed drove game-playing and?undue pressure to publish in some disciplines.

Under the proposed changes for REF 2028, , institutions will still need to submit an average of 2.5 outputs for every research-active member of staff, but there will be no limit on the number of submissions, nor a minimum level of submissions, for each researcher.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

However, ¡°units will be required to explain how their submitted output pool is representative of the research undertaken within the disciplinary area, including in collaboration with other institutions or external partners¡±, explains the newly published guidance, addressing concerns that some institutions will rely excessively on the numerous publications of a few individuals.

Read our at-a-glance guide to the proposed rules on submissions and assessments for REF 2028

Cost of REF doubled to ?471 million for 2021 exercise

The new rules are designed to encourage more team-based approaches to REF submissions, which would allow some research-focused staff not to contribute any outputs over the seven-year REF cycle. This policy would provide universities with greater freedom to allow staff to take secondments outside academia, hire more staff without track records of academic outputs, such as early-career researchers or those from industry, and include more ¡°research-enabling staff¡± in submissions, Research England explains.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Rules on the submission of staff to the next REF will also change significantly. Previously, universities submitted a list of staff deemed research-active to the REF team at Research England, which runs the exercise on behalf of all four UK research funderes, on a particular census date. Under the proposed new regime, universities will need to identify research-active staff and, from 2024-25, submit this data to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). Research England will draw on HESA information for 2025-26 and 2026-27 to decide the volume of full-time-equivalent research staff at an institution, which will then inform the number of outputs required for submissions in late 2027, with results published in December 2028.

Staff employed on at least a 0.2 FTE basis for at least six months in this two-year REF assessment period would be eligible to submit outputs ¡°where a link to the institution can be demonstrated¡±.

Campus views: Don¡¯t let the REF tail wag the academic dog

The three elements used to assess researchers have also been renamed and the respective weightings attached to each element.

For the 2028 REF, research outputs will make up only 50 per cent of an institution¡¯s overall score,?down from 60 per cent in 2021?and 65 per cent in 2014. Of the outputs element, renamed ¡°contribution to knowledge and understanding¡±, at least 10 per cent will be decided on the basis of a ¡°structured statement¡± in which universities will ¡°outline their wider contribution to knowledge and understanding in the disciplinary area, supported by evidence and data¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Impact, now renamed ¡°impact and engagement¡±, will remain at 25 per cent weighting, while a newly expanded environment section, renamed ¡°people and culture¡±, will constitute 25 per cent of the overall score, up from 15 per cent in 2021.

Proposals to scrap disciplinary-level environment statements ¨C advocated by the Russell Group?because of concerns?about?the time and expense of collecting such data, and?backed by a Research England panel?¨C have not been taken forward after consultation groups said these statements remained a ¡°valuable assessment element¡±. Both institutional-level and discipline-level statements will be used to decide environment scores, with the exact metrics likely to be used not yet decided. A ¡°more tightly defined, questionnaire-style template¡± will be introduced to reduce the effort spent on the creation of environment statements.

The changes by the Future Research Assessment Board?come after two years of consultation, round-table events and a number of commissioned evidence reports. It also drew on the advice of an international advisory group led by New Zealand¡¯s?former chief scientist, Sir Peter Gluckman.

A separate report summarising the group¡¯s work, also published on 15 June, indicates that the group recommended equal weighting for each of the REF¡¯s three elements ¨C outputs, environment and impact ¨C though this proposal has not been adopted.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Announcing a??on the proposal, which will be followed by further discussion with expert panels, Dame Jessica Corner, executive chair at Research England, said: ¡°This is a once-in-a-generation moment for change as we shift national research assessment away from a focus on individuals to how institutions and disciplines contribute to healthy, dynamic and inclusive research environments, and as we shift from a focus on published research outputs towards a broader view of what constitutes research excellence and how it can be demonstrated.¡±

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com