# data[].attributes.headline
Outputs where the eligible employment relationship occurred before the output was published..

# data[].attributes.subject
Outputs where the eligible employment relationship occurred before the output was published..

# data[].attributes.body
Now that these outputs no longer need any evidence of connection to the submitting HEI.. How are others approaching this now? Are you still planning to satisfy yourselves that the research was done by the submitting HEI, or are you just taking it that if there was a substantive link + it's within time limited period = eligibility has been met?

# data[].attributes.body
What might constitute an acceptable/well-developed position on a bottom-up approach, in terms of the research strategy and the institution- and unit-level statements?

# data[].attributes.headline
Outputs appearing before the REF 2029 publication period

# data[].attributes.subject
Outputs appearing before the REF 2029 publication period

# data[].attributes.body
It was mentioned in the CKU town hall that pre-prints appearing in 2020 and not submitted to REF 2021 will be eligible if subsequently published in REF 2029 publication period. Do you anticipate this rule to be extended to anything other than pre-prints. The REF 2021 guidance referred more broadly to "output first published in its final form during the REF 2021 publication period that was ‘pre-published’ in the previous publication period".

# data[].attributes.headline
Staff moving to excluded contracts after eligible publication

# data[].attributes.subject
Staff moving to excluded contracts after eligible publication

# data[].attributes.body
The CKU guidance says outputs by individuals on an excluded contract may be eligible for submission if the individual subsequently moved to an eligible (research) contract (CKU 6.9.1.). We are assuming that in the reverse scenario, where the individual was in an eligible contract at the time of publication and subsequently moved to an excluded contract, the output can be submitted, but we can't see this explicitly mentioned in the guidance. What is your view?

# data[].attributes.body
Does anyone have a feel for what changes could be made to SUE limits?

# data[].attributes.body
Does anyone have a feel for what changes are likely for SUEs?

# data[].attributes.body
What do people think about REF's vague reassurance that changes can be made to HESA returns after they are submitted? From what I've heard that is historically difficult. Very pertinent as we essentially need to select our final UoAs via the HESA return before we even have unit descriptors.

# data[].attributes.body
CKU guidance establishes a 'reserve list' from which outputs can be drawn as replacements in certain circumstances, rather than (as for REF2021) offering reserves for specific outputs. How should we be working this in respect of the max 5 requirement?

# data[].attributes.body
What might an EIA examine, in respect of selection of outputs? Presumably the characteristics of their author(s), but how does that work for co-authored outputs? Do we look at all the authors or just those on whom the eligible employment relationship rests?

# data[].attributes.body
A 'continuing' case study is clearly defined as one in which there has been no new research and which continues to have had impact broadly similar to that for REF2021. While such examples must exist, what do colleagues think about submitting them? Especially in smaller units, does the absence of 'new' impact case studies not reflect negatively on the development of that unit since 2021?

# data[].attributes.headline
CoP EDI considerations for allocation of contracts to UoAs 

# data[].attributes.subject
CoP EDI considerations for allocation of contracts to UoAs 

# data[].attributes.body
Our initial EIA on the CoP noted that there was no requirement to check whether contract allocations result in clusters of particular protected

groups within specific UoAs. Such patterns could unintentionally disadvantage certain

demographics. We have introduced a trigger of 5% to identify significant differences, but this is not practical for our smallest UoAs. Any advice as to how others have dealt with this would be greatly appreciated?

# data[].attributes.headline
Submitting an output to more than one UoA

# data[].attributes.subject
Submitting an output to more than one UoA

# data[].attributes.body
If an output can be submitted to more than one UoA, do you think we will need to demonstrate that we have made a distinct contribution to each of the UoAs... or will it be sufficient for the research to fit into the descriptor of each UoA?

# data[].attributes.headline
Exceptional Circumstances for Teaching Only

# data[].attributes.subject
Exceptional Circumstances for Teaching Only

# data[].attributes.body
Interested to get hot takes from the room on para 6.8 of CKU guidance

# data[].attributes.headline
Small unit exceptions - doesn't this need to be sorted before the first HESA count?

# data[].attributes.subject
Small unit exceptions - doesn't this need to be sorted before the first HESA count?

# data[].attributes.body
In REF 2021, the Small Unit Exception/Exemption process was opened in April 2019, closed in Dec 2019, ahead of the census date July 2020. Since our first staff count is coming up July 2026, surely we can't really wait until the 'Submissions' policy publication due Autumn 2026? (as the latest guidance & Helen Cross blog indicates)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Invitation to make requests for multiple submissions, exception from submission for small units and for impact case studies requiring security clearance - REF 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You need cookies enabled to use this website.

# data[].attributes.headline
Explicit expectation of research activity

# data[].attributes.subject
Explicit expectation of research activity

# data[].attributes.body
6.3.1 - "the role descriptor includes an explicit expectation of research activity (in line with the REF definition of research) within the role. ‘Research activity’ is not restricted by profession and an eligible employment relationship may be with any staff member who undertakes, enables or supports research". Who do we think this covers? Would it include senior team members who lead on research strategy?

# data[].attributes.headline
REF Manager voice contributing to Panel discussions...

# data[].attributes.subject
REF Manager voice contributing to Panel discussions...

# data[].attributes.body
Concern over some of the processes panels will be discussing and whether there will be REF manager voices there to contribute on the administration, burden, finer points of technical detail etc.

# data[].attributes.body
If a HEP can’t test Research Independence until April/May 2026 because of delays with getting the CoP approved, then subsequently those staff deemed independent are flagged as REFQUALCON as 01 (eligible), but because this field is held at contract level, does that not mean only the CONFTE from the point of assessing eligibility is captured in the volume measure i.e. in this example from April/May 2026? Surely this means those HEPs assessing Research Independence later in 2025-26 will have a lesser FTE and be disadvantaged in the volume measure?

The HESA rules and REF guidance are just not clear (at least to me)!

# data[].attributes.body
The guidance on long form portability makes it sound as though a book might be eligible for both the author's old- and new- HEI if they move, providing it meets the time limited period etc. If this is correct, can it be submitted to both, or has anyone read the guidance that it would have to go to one or the other?

# data[].attributes.headline
What does the SIG think are reasonable reasons for exceeding recommended maximum of 5 outputs?

# data[].attributes.subject
What does the SIG think are reasonable reasons for exceeding recommended maximum of 5 outputs?

# data[].attributes.headline
Submitting previously underpinning research alongside new underpinning research 

# data[].attributes.subject
Submitting previously underpinning research alongside new underpinning research 

# data[].attributes.body
I am interpreting the guidance as we can, but academics are saying that par 7.1 in E&I module is not clear enough. I have asked the REF team for clarification, but I have not yet had reply. Does anyone have any thoughts, please?