Pausing the Research Excellence Framework (REF) offers an important opportunity to revisit plans that will soon stop academics from taking research outputs with them to new employers, according to leading scholars.

While science minister Patrick Vallance’s shock announcement of a three-month pause of REF 2029 was widely seen as a move to review the controversial “people, culture and environment” section and its proposed 25 per cent weighting, scholars are calling on Research England to examine other equally contentious areas of the new-look exercise.

Plans to decouple individuals from submitted outputs have already proved , with some sector bodies complaining that breaking the link between researchers and their outputs is unfair.

Furthermore, many believe the lack of portability of outputs – which will be retained by institutions for scholars employed within a two-year census window – is equally damaging to academic excellence as it would hinder the ability of early career researchers to use their outputs to move within the sector.

�鶹

“The one currency that early career researchers and those returning from a career break can actually use to move institutions is their outstanding research outputs,” explained Rosa Freedman, professor of law, conflict and global development at University of Reading.

“Moving institutions, as we know, is hugely important for academic excellence – it allows exchange with other researchers, encourages professional growth and rewards outstanding work. Without mobility, good researchers can often stagnate because they are stuck in the same place,” continued Freedman. “We should be encouraging mobility, not pushing people to stay in post because they won’t have the currency to move.”

�鶹

Ending research output portability would be particularly damaging for humanities and social science scholars and may even deter them from going the extra mile to produce top research, continued Freedman.

“Single authored research outputs are often a labour of love which can take years to think through and then deliver – it’s not just about where the researcher happened to be working at a certain point in the REF window. So much of your research outputs come from expertise acquired over a whole career,” said Freedman on why institutions should not gain exclusive rights to their staff’s outputs.

“Creating a healthy academic environment is important but you cannot have this unless people can exchange knowledge and move between institutions, and within their research subgroups,” said Freedman.

The REF’s organisers have previously acknowledged that portability of research outputs has been “one of the most prominent” aspects of the sector’s response to its changes, but defended the change by arguing that funding to reward REF excellence “should follow the institutions that have genuinely provided and invested in the environment in which research is successful”.

�鶹

Several early career researchers have also contacted Times Higher Education anonymously to raise their concerns about the lack of portability of outputs. “At this stage of my career with some good research papers to my name, I need to move universities to make that next step – these changes really don’t help,” one legal scholar at a Russell Group university told THE.

Those concerns were echoed by Jennifer Richards, chair of the English Association, who said that “portability of outputs remains a concern for many humanities bodies, and for researchers at every stage of career”.

“The funding bodies have stated their commitment to supporting a diversity of research outputs, including those that take time to produce, which may be supported by two (or more) institutions,” said Richards, professor of Renaissance English literature at the University of Cambridge, who noted an “agreement will be reached that the rules on the ‘eligible employment relationship’ will not apply to these longform and/or longer-process outputs”.

“As chair of the subpanel for English language and literature I am looking forward to working with Research England, panel chairs and the sector bodies on agreeing the new guidance for these outputs.”

�鶹

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com