探花视频

Use REF pause to review non-portability of outputs, urge scholars

Breaking the link between researchers and their outputs harms academic mobility and disciplinary excellence, argue professors

Published on
September 23, 2025
Last updated
September 23, 2025
Source: iStock/Wirestock

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鈥檚 shock announcement of a three-month pause of REF 2029 was widely seen as a move to review the controversial 鈥減eople, culture and environment鈥 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 鈥 which will be retained by institutions for scholars employed within a two-year census window 鈥 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.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

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

鈥淢oving institutions, as we know, is hugely important for academic excellence 鈥 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,鈥 continued Freedman. 鈥淲e should be encouraging mobility, not pushing people to stay in post because they won鈥檛 have the currency to move.鈥

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

鈥淪ingle authored research outputs are often a labour of love which can take years to think through and then deliver 鈥 it鈥檚 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,鈥 said Freedman on why institutions should not gain exclusive rights to their staff鈥檚 outputs.

鈥淐reating 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,鈥 said Freedman.

The REF鈥檚 organisers have previously acknowledged that portability of research outputs has been 鈥渙ne of the most prominent鈥 aspects of the sector鈥檚 response to its changes, but defended the change by arguing that funding to reward REF excellence 鈥渟hould follow the institutions that have genuinely provided and invested in the environment in which research is successful鈥.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

Several early career researchers have also contacted 探花视频 anonymously to raise their concerns about the lack of portability of outputs. 鈥淎t this stage of my career with some good research papers to my name, I need to move universities to make that next step 鈥 these changes really don鈥檛 help,鈥 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 鈥減ortability of outputs remains a concern for many humanities bodies, and for researchers at every stage of career鈥.

鈥淭he 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,鈥 said Richards, professor of Renaissance English literature at the University of Cambridge, who noted an 鈥渁greement will be reached that the rules on the 鈥榚ligible employment relationship鈥 will not apply to these longform and/or longer-process outputs鈥.

鈥淎s 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.鈥

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Related universities

Reader's comments (16)

The funders are trying to reward institutions who support their researchers to do excellent research while employed by them rather than rewarding institutions who buy in major researchers at the last minute, as in the past. I would like there to be some provisions in the case of ECRs, especially in the humanities, but, on the whole and for the health of the sector, portability is not a good thing, however it may disadvantage a few scholars keen to capitalise on their current REF entry and maximise their career and earnings potential.
Don't forget that non-portability has some very pernicious consequences. It encourages lazy and coercive thinking in universities. In this system it's all too easy for universities to lord it over ECRs especially, by trapping scholars and threatening to lay them off, knowing that they'll be able to keep their outputs anyway. It also stifles policy innovation, giving universities far too much power in the employer-employee relationship, providing zero incentive for universities to do more in developing and keeping on ECRs. If ECRs could threaten to move, then maybe universities would do more to keep them and their research. As for the plea on the part of universities that 'we deserve this, because we nurtured the talent' - don't make me laugh. Pretty much everything I've achieved in my scholarly career to date has been despite my university, not because of it. They've basically thrown every obstacle possible in my way, and I've still overcome it. I feel that I owe them very little. Non-portability is nothing more than a special pleading whinge.
Well if the principle is to assess the unit and not the individual then, in theory, portability of research outputs is the exceptional "add-on" to the system and a special opting out as it were. "Non-portability" by definition a negative concept does not really exist under such a regime so we should not argue from the premise that it is a specific policy. In effect it is the norm of the system of assessment and "portability" is the state of exception or as you so forensically put it, the "special whinge". Now you can, if you wish, make the argument in certain cases, for example that of ECRS, for a special exceptional treatment (and I am sypmathetic to such a case) but you do so bt creating an inconsistency in the assessment system and the more inconsostencies, the more the system ceases to function effectively.
The block on portability is dangerous and just a bit totalitarian. Scholars may hold onto their work until they have secured a better position anyway. This will undermine the scientific process and slow down innovation. Most academics would probably agree that the environment UK universities offer for research is degrading in the meantime (too much admin and teaching), and they do their research despite it, because it's their vocation. It's a huge backwards step.
Well the danger otherwise of course is the employment of the major researcher who gets all the research time, leave, etc etc, whereas other collegues end up doing the admin and teaching and not the research
Well there is no block on portabioity if one assesses the unit not the individual. In such a system, portability of research outputs does not exist. In the past, the problem has been that the system of assessment orginally served to assess both the individual and the unit but the drift has been towards assessing the unit, and rightly so in my view. I am however not entirely opposed to assessing the individual researcher but the sector has been very much against this fearing that individial members of staff would then be targetted by institutions where their research productivity was low or mnn existent. Hence the moaning in some quarters about all staff having, ceteris paribus, four items to submit. But we can't have it both ways and two bites of the chewrry as it were. let's be consisten and assess one or the other. If it's the individual then there should be no problem as far as I can see in theory with allowing full portability of research outputs.
Well yes exactly. Both sides here are just pushing for the policy that benefits their individual circumstances in my view. Certainly protect vulnerable ECRs as exceptiopnal but other colleagues should just suck it up and stop their endless gaming for better conditions and employment. They are lucky to have a job in the first place!
The "census window" (as you describe it) for volume has nothing to do with the non-portability of outputs. Staff being part of the volume measure and having an eligible employment relationship for substantive link to a submitted output are completely different things - as it says in the REF guidance, they are decoupled. The funders are trying to reward institutions who support their researchers to do excellent research while employed by them - rather than rewarding institutions who bought in talent at the last minute, as in the previous two exercises.
Well yes exactly! Either assess the individual or assess the unit, one or the other in my view and be consistent with no exceptions for the so-called "star" researchers. They have things easy enough as it is comoared to the rest of the profession. I am sympathetic to the plight of ECRs however and would not want them to be disadvantaged.
Yes this seems to me to be the usual special pleading by those who seek to profit career-wise by the REF route. If will have some force as so many of the panel memebrs etc are of that ilk and want o make the excersice work as much in their as favour as they can. I thought the REF was supposed to prevent gaming by individuals and institutions?
Let us hope they do not pull the wool over Sir Patrick's eyes! They will never relinquish one opportunity to promote their own career prospects
REF guidance does *not* inhibit mobility in the way this article suggests. Yes, there's provision for the institutions who have supported a researcher's work during their employment, to submit that work where it is published within a period after that employment ends (tbc, but two years for most outputs, and up to five years for long-form outputs). But that does *not* prevent a new employing institution, which has demonstrably supported the researcher's work too, from also submitting the researcher's work, so is not a hindrance. In any case, arguments that portability enables mobility rely on the output being seen as a commodity, with a value over and above its inherent research value. But should prospective employers not be making appointment decisions based on the researcher's capability and potential, evidenced in part by their output track record, primarily? I can't think of many other professions where that isn't the case.
"But should prospective employers not be making appointment decisions based on the researcher's capability and potential, evidenced in part by their output track record, primarily? I can't think of many other professions where that isn't the case." My sentiments exactly!! This is the key point surely.
Hope they restore portability. For ECRs and precariously-employed scholars the proposed change deprives you of one of your few strong cards in a bleak job market: high-quality publications that are forthcoming. I take the point about 鈥榞aming鈥 the system by bringing in research 鈥榮tars鈥 late in the cycle but a) there will be gaming whatever happens and b) then propose changes to limit this. Throwing out portability is a bad idea and none of the arguments offered have convinced me otherwise.
"none of the arguments offered have convinced me otherwise." Well Galileo could not convince the Holy Inquisition that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
"then propose changes to limit this." This is what is being proposed

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT