Greater research integrity focus ‘likely for REF 2029’

Narrative statements describing how UK universities uphold research integrity and manage security risks are likely to be required for the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) under efforts to measure the quality of an institution’s academic culture.

With guidance on submissions and impact largely finalised for the REF 2029, universities are awaiting news on how the next exercise will assess “strategy, people and research environment” (SPRE), an element worth 20 per cent of an institution’s overall score.

It follows extensive work to find quantitative metrics that could be used to compare the strength of universities’ research culture. Only a few indicators tested by a pilot found “reasonable agreement” among panellists asked to assess them, with the exercise now likely to revert to a largely narrative-based exercise.

Ahead of the publication of formal guidance in autumn 2026, the REF will share the draft assessment criteria for SPRE on 31 July when it launches a sector-wide survey over the summer to “seek feedback on the clarity of selected elements before they are finalised”.

Attention is likely to turn to the institution-level element of SPRE, which will be worth 60 per cent of the environment score, with unit-level statements worth 40 per cent.

While the same four-section template used in the 2021 exercise is likely to be retained, Times Higher Education understands the strategy section will place greater emphasis on research integrity than in previous exercises.

That may include providing a separate section on governance arrangements in relation to responsible research and research integrity, with provisions to allow institutions to report data on research misconduct complaints and investigations over the REF window.

That section would also see institutions asked to describe how they manage and monitor risks associated with research security, especially how universities increase awareness of threats related to key disciplinary areas.

The draft rules, seen by THE, are likely to force universities to revisit their research integrity regulations to ensure they remain consistent with latest guidance published in the UK’s Concordat to Support Research Integrity, updated last year, and more detailed guidance published by the UK Research Integrity Office.

That expanded focus on research integrity within the institutional statement has been welcomed by academic experts who hoped the demand for more publicly available information on integrity policies would drive up standards.

Simon Kolstoe, associate professor of bioethics at the University of Portsmouth, where he is the institution’s ethics adviser, described the REF as an “excellent mechanism for directly incentivising behaviours that make research better”.

“The Concordat to Support Research Integrity is an aspirational document, but not a driver for change on its own,” explained Kolstoe, adding: “We all know that research misconduct is happening, but revealing it seems to be a major problem.”

“If REF can find a way to directly measure research integrity activities it will incentivise universities to do better. This would go a long way to raising standards and reducing research waste,” he said.

A spokesperson for the REF declined to comment on forthcoming guidance, which will also seek views on equality-related unit reductions in the new framework.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com