# data[].attributes.body
This is going to be a massive burden on institutions compared to a simple REF1 submission. It will be an industry compiling all that data for every single output

# data[].attributes.body
Decoupling is dead in the water given the need to attach HESA ID to each output. The REF 2029 team need to accept it, move on and produce guidance that is pragmatic, meaningful and clear.

# data[].attributes.body
This is more potentially quantifiable for EDI characteristics or career stage, but how can it be done for something as nebulous as research areas?

# data[].attributes.headline
Excluding all outputs published in the first year of employment

# data[].attributes.subject
Excluding all outputs published in the first year of employment

# data[].attributes.body
We are reading the guidance that only outputs published once the eligible employment relationship criteria is fulfilled (i.e. minimum 12 months at 0.2FTE contract) can be submitted to REF 2029. Could we confirm that this means we are to exclude outputs published in the first 12 months within an employment contract from our submission, please?

# data[].attributes.headline
Clarification of what 'publicly available' is for the purposes of output eligibility

# data[].attributes.subject
Clarification of what 'publicly available' is for the purposes of output eligibility

# data[].attributes.body
Does a deposit in an institutional repository upon acceptance (and not subject to embargo) constitute 'publicly available' or are we to use the first publication date (online or in print)?

# data[].attributes.body
An eligible relationship is defined as 0.2 FTE for at least 12 months AND "The role descriptor includes an explicit expectation of research activity (as distinct from scholarship) within the role."(6.3.1)

Does this mean that technicians/enterprise staff outputs are not eligible unless they co-author with a 'research' member of staff? What is a 'role descriptor'? It's not a term that is defined anywhere. I don't know benefit what this additional criteria serves other than to narrow the scope of eligible outputs. Yet all the comms talk about widening the scope.

Also in 6.9 they discuss outputs authored during excluded contracts and specify an eligible employment relationship is T&R or R-only "Outputs authored by individuals while on an excluded contract may be eligible for submission if the individual subsequently moved to an eligible contract (that is, Teaching and Research or Research only) during the REF period..."

# data[].attributes.body
We seem to be required to flag which outputs are those of staff no longer employed at the submission date, regardless of whether the output was made publicly available during employment. It's really hard to produce "live" HR data, and I have visions of checking and re-checking current employment on the run up to submission...

# data[].attributes.headline
Unclassified outputs for misalignment to a UOA

# data[].attributes.subject
Unclassified outputs for misalignment to a UOA

# data[].attributes.body
This scares me, and could lead to deep conservatism about what to submit to which UOA, IDR being omitted from submissions, and distortions in the same thing being submitted loads of times where the UOA descriptors overlap. How can we know what rationale we can use for assigning outputs to a UOA? We don't have a definition of a UOA submission yet ( a replacement for REF 2021 GoS para 65). What is cross referral for if outputs which fall outside a unit descriptor are ineligible?

# data[].attributes.headline
Contradictions to initial decisions/ next steps on submission of an output to multiple UOAs

# data[].attributes.subject
Contradictions to initial decisions/ next steps on submission of an output to multiple UOAs

# data[].attributes.body
In Initial Decisions and next steps on initial decisions, it was framed that submitting an output to more then on UOA was for co-authored outputs only - but 3.1.1 suggests we can submit a single authored output to as many UOAs as it fits in

# data[].attributes.body
Is the expectation for the Code of Practice to incorporate an institution's approach to DLS without having received full guidance on this element of the submission sincere? There have already been (unmet) calls for later submission dates offered for CoP, surely this is essential given the volume of references within the CKU guidance of further information that is still to follow.

# data[].attributes.body
I've read the CoP and the separate EIA guidance and I'm really concerned at how we are going to comply with it. The scope covers the entire CoP and must be submitted with the CoP. It should be done during CoP development, concurrently with decisions on SRR and RI, concurrently with decisions on allocation of eligible contracts to UoAs, during the design and implementation of processes for selection of outputs, in relation to appeals/review mechanisms. EIAs should be informed through engaging, consulting or involving staff from protected groups. I'm at a large teaching-intensive HEI but with significant research too. Our small EDI unit isn't able to provide any hands-on help, but may provide guidance. My REF Team is tiny - we don't have the resource or the expertise to do all of this! I'm particularly puzzled about an EIA on the allocation of eligible contracts to UoAs which we will do on the basis of UoA descriptors. There won't be much if any choice. It will be what it is, because we don't want an unclassified output because it was misaligned to a UoA! The EIA requirements seem hugely burdensome compared to those for REF2021 and take no account of the shrinking staff numbers in professional services in many HEIs.

# data[].attributes.body
Does anyone have any indication as to what a triple or indeed quadruple weighted output looks like? Also, if we were to have quadruple weighting - is the suggestion we would need 3 reserve outputs?

# data[].attributes.headline
A REF qualifying contract of <0.2 FTE needs to be counted for volume, but that does not constitute an 'eligible employment relationship'

# data[].attributes.subject
A REF qualifying contract of <0.2 FTE needs to be counted for volume, but that does not constitute an 'eligible employment relationship'

# data[].attributes.body
In the Volume Measure Town Hall slides it was made clear that 'contracts below 0.2 CONFTE are included in the volume measure'. However, outputs from such staff can never be eligible for submission as it could never constitute an eligible employment relationship. This does not seem fair but perhaps this is where the Unit reduction requests could come into play?

# data[].attributes.body
Is anyone else feeling very dejected about the current REF? This is my third REF and every time they talk about reducing the burden of the exercise... and yet this REF seems to get more and more complicated with things changing constantly. The COP and EIA requirements are huge. The changes to staff/volume measure and outputs will cause lots more work as so much more is required. and then there's the whole PCE, narratives in other elements and who knows what they'll do to impact? I understand accountability for public funding, but this really does feel like SO MUCH MORE than it has ever been. And even where we have guidance it could change when it goes to panels for discussion. We give feedback - and yet it's like screaming into the void. Sorry - but I needed to say this!

# data[].attributes.body
Drafting potential CoP for outputs it has become clear that until the systems we all use (ePrints, Worktribe, Symplectic, Pure etc) are all updated as to how we can do things like allocate multiple UoAs we can not be clear on our processes for some elements of the CoP.... but even the most on it suppliers are not going to be able to do much before next summer are they?

# data[].attributes.body
Has anyone been invited to this 2-day deep dive and maybe able to share any insights on what they are probing?

On the timetable they have said that the draft policy will be published in Summer 2025, if not delayed. This also means the Panels will not have sight of the guidance before it is released.

# data[].attributes.headline
Highest quality research vs Representative submissions

# data[].attributes.subject
Highest quality research vs Representative submissions

# data[].attributes.body
Has anyone thought of which of the following would result in a "better" CKU Quality Profile?

1. Shortlisting solely based on excellence but could be less representative, having considered the less excellent outputs

2. Balancing representativeness but having to not submit some of the best outputs

# data[].attributes.headline
Employment period starting pre REF 2029 period and ending less than 12mths within period. Output published after leaving during time limited period. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Employment period starting pre REF 2029 period and ending less than 12mths within period. Output published after leaving during time limited period. 

# data[].attributes.body
Pondering an example, employment period commencing say Jan 2019 and ending Jul 2021. Well over 12mths in total, 1 FTE. But only 7mths of tenure in REF 2029 period. We think this is an eligible employment relationship and therefore a short form output published within 2yrs of leaving and long-form within 5yrs could potentially be submitted. Are others reading the guidance in this way?

# data[].attributes.body
Re availability of additional evidence for substantive link for former staff (left say 2017) and published 2021 - are they really expecting we have evidence of internal support arrangements / conferences attended / grants / work-in-progress presentations before 2017 (their digital space would have been deleted / data retention protocols). Am I reading that wrong? The burden to bottom out particular cases would likely exceed benefit. Seems to risk underrepresentation of outputs of former staff.