On 10 December 2025, Research England announced the ‘unpausing’ of REF2029 and, with it, completion of a three-month review of the terms and principles of the current assessment exercise.

With unpausing, REF2029 moves forward. The messaging around December’s announcement was clear: a more pragmatic, less burdensome REF template is ‘back on track’, with attention soon to move to the work of criteria setting by subject panels.

But December marked more than resumption after a temporary halt. The updates announced were extensive and include significant changes to the structure and content of REF2029.

As the current exercise has developed, the Royal Historical Society has offered summaries, analysis and constructive criticism in response to key stages in the design of the next REF. December’s updating is one such point, with notable decisions and potential ramifications for History, historians and the wider humanities.

We begin with the headline announcements that accompanied December’s unpausing. These are as follows:

 

• a revised weighting of the three core elements of REF2029: that for ‘Cultures of Knowledge and Understanding’ (CKU) increases from 50 to 55% of the total score; that for what’s now ‘Strategy, People and Research Environment’ (‘SPRE’, previously the ‘People, Culture and Environment’ element) decreases from 25 to 20%; while Impact & Engagement remains at 25%

 

• as noted above, People, Culture and Environment (PCE) is replaced by a new-look element which places greater emphasis on an institution’s strategies for developing environments to support research and staff. In making this change, Research England cites recommendations from the recent PCE pilot exercise, the findings of which were also published on 10 December. REF leaders describe this not as a move away from ‘culture’ but towards ‘creating the conditions that enable people to conduct world-class research.’^[1]

 

• the final score for the new-look SPRE element will be based on an institution-level statement (60% of the total) and a Unit-level statement (40%). This weighting reflects ‘the responsibility institutions have to support and resource positive research cultures and environments within units and reduces the burden for submitting units.’^[2] (For more on the possible implications of this decision for History Units, please see the second part of this post.)

 

• the content of CKU also changed from 10 December. Submissions for this element no longer require a Unit-level statement, with CKU scores to be based solely on the outputs submitted. Gone too is the proposal for individuals to submit unlimited numbers of outputs within CKU. 

 

Updated REF guidance now states that  a maximum of five outputs per author will be allowed within each Unit’s submission, other than in exceptional circumstances. It remains the case that the number of outputs to be submitted should be 2.5 times that of the average volume of the Unit’s FTE over the census period, and that individuals may be included in that measure without any of their outputs being submitted to the exercise. 

 

• the Engagement & Impact element is unchanged with the E&I template remaining ‘very similar’ to that for REF2021. However ‘small’ Units  with fewer than 9.99 FTE may choose whether to submit one or two impact case studies, while Units with a volume measure of 10 to 19.99 FTE will be required to submit two case studies.

 

• REF has revised its policy on ‘decoupling’ outputs from their authors. From now, portability of long-form and long-process outputs (principally monographs, edited collections and scholarly editions, common within History and the humanities) will be permissible for a period of up to five years from the date of publication. In the words of the updated REF guidance: ‘Where a researcher is employed on a contract that constitutes an eligible employment relationship at an institution at the point a REF submission is made, long-form and/or extended process outputs published before this contract commenced will be eligible for submission if: i. they were first made publicly available during the REF period (January 2021 to December 2028) and ii. the staff member’s eligible employment relationship with the submitting institution commenced within 5 years of the output first being made publicly available.’

 

• there will be no multi-track approach to REF2029, though Research England is looking to expand its 2021 policy to enable small Units not to submit to REF where this fits with an institution’s strategy.

 

• it appears AI will not play a part in the assessment of REF2029, though December’s announcement noted the need to adapt to technological developments for the planning of future exercises.

 

Following the December announcement, revised guidance from Research England is now available for the three core elements of REF2029 – Culture, Knowledge and Understanding, Engagement and Impact; and Strategy, People and Research Environment – along with an amended REF timetable to the submission deadline, which remains Autumn 2028. 

December’s announcement also included publication of the report on the People, Culture and Environment pilot exercise which took place earlier in 2025.

 

***

 

There is much to consider here, both with reference to the politics and structure of REF2029, and – important for the Society and its membership – the potential disciplinary implications of these changes.

Research England’s rethink on portability for long-form outputs is especially welcome and a major achievement at a time of intense professional uncertainty and turbulence …

 

Also positive is confirmation that smaller Units will be able to submit just one impact case study as part of the Engagement and Impact element (or two if they choose to do so).

Let’s start with the positives. For historians, and the humanities more widely, there are several significant advances. Research England’s rethink on portability for long-form outputs is especially welcome and a major achievement at a time of intense professional uncertainty and turbulence. Those on Main Panel D (Arts & Humanities) and from societies, such as the English Association, who alongside ourselves, lobbied REF to rethink deserve considerable thanks for this work. 

Also positive is confirmation that smaller Units will be able to submit just one impact case study as part of the Engagement and Impact element (or two if they choose to do so). This is a decision that will affect a growing number of History Units come 2028-29, and the pragmatism and flexibility here is welcome. Impact is an arena in which historians excel. The opportunity to identify and communicate the civic value of historical practice – regionally and nationally, and across all kinds of Units and institutions – is to be welcomed.

At the same time, we must be alert to the potential pressures placed on individual, and hence identifiable, historians whose sole impact study has the potential to comprise 25% of a smaller Unit’s final REF submission in 2029. We must think carefully about managing burdens and expectations for colleagues who are already experiencing considerable demands as staffing levels and resources diminish. 

Likewise, we need to pay close attention to the question of Unit exemptions based on size. December’s restart, while ending talk of a twin-track REF, did not address the subject of scale, with Research England stating its intention ‘to expand its REF 2021 policy for small units not to submit … should that align with institutional strategy’. 

The Society is concerned that the volume threshold for determining exemptions may be set too high. If so, this will be particularly detrimental to subjects across the humanities which – regrettably – now make up a growing share of the smallest Units in an institution. It is vital these Units remain research active. Final REF thresholds should not hand university leaders the means to cast smaller Units as unviable for submission and their staff as undeserving of research time and funding.

 

***

 

The discussions accompanying last autumn’s REF pause concentrated on possible futures for what was then the ‘People, Culture and Environment’ (PCE) element. In its own contribution (October 2025), the Society spoke up for the recognition and reward of vibrant research cultures, and noted the leading role historians have and continue to play in developing (in tandem with engagement and impact) healthier environments throughout the HE sector.

The Society was therefore surprised and disappointed by what emerged when the pause was lifted in December. In its new format ‘Culture’ has given way to ‘Strategy’ while the rebranded ‘Strategy, People and Research Environment’ (SPRE) element (now at 20% of the total score) gives ground to Outputs (60%) as REF tacks towards the tested formulas of 2021. Research England, of course, has been quick to state its continued commitment to research culture while REF-watchers have debated the significance of these changes.

More significant, and concerning, is the decision to weight the final SPRE Environment score at 60:40 between the final institution-level and Unit-level statements. Accordingly, the institutional statement now makes up 12% of a Unit’s final REF score while the Unit contribution will constitute just 8% of its total profile.

More significant, and concerning, however, is the decision to weight the final SPRE Environment score at 60:40 between the final institution-level and Unit-level statements.

 

Accordingly, the institutional statement now makes up 12% of a Unit’s final REF score while the Unit contribution will constitute just 8% of its total profile – compared to 15% in REF20221.

In contrast to Outputs and Impact, the Environment element is moving away further from the principles of REF2021. Back then, submissions for this element lay wholly with the Unit and counted for a much more significant 15% of a Unit’s total score. Now, as befits Research England’s prioritisation of institutional culture, it will be shared (unequally) between disciplinary specialists on the ground, and those speaking for complex and competitive institutions in their entirety.

This prompts important questions. When it comes to statement drafting, how will we ensure that the culture and contribution of History is understood and appreciated by university senior managers — not least when the humanities have been early and regular subjects for institutional retrenchment? How do we best convey the strength and value of History in areas of environment and culture, so apparent in REF2021, for the coming exercise? Furthermore, when it comes to assessing SPRE, it’s not yet clear how institution-level statements will be scored, and whether subject panels — which will assess Unit-level statements — will have access to institution-level scores.

 

***

 

We should also consider the potential disciplinary and Unit consequences of an assessment model now weighted in favour of the institution.

Modelling drawn from REF2021 data, and recently shared with the Society, shows that a 60:40 weighting would have produced very different Environment results for individual History Units had there been equivalent institutional participation in the last assessment exercise. 

Re-running 2021 data, adjusted for a 60:40 weighting by using the overall 2021 Institutional Environment GPA, reveals significant and extensive change in Units’ GPA rankings for this element, with a variance of +34 to -32 places for the 81 History Units entered into REF 2021.

From among these risers and fallers, certain trends are discernible. Applying the 60:40 formula to 2021 REF environment data results in:

• 67% of History Units in Russell Group institutions improving their ranking with a 2021 Environment score now weighted 60 (institution) / 40 (unit).
• 50% of History Units in non-Russell Group / Pre-1992 institutions improving their ranking with a similar 60:40 weighting.
• 46% of History Units in Post-1992 institutions improving their ranking with a similar 60:40 weighting.

In addition, of the History Units whose Environment rankings vary negatively (-1 to -32 places) with a 2021 Environment score now weighted 60 (institution) / 40 (unit): 

• 19% are in Russell Group institutions
• 30% are in non-Russell-Group / Pre-1992 institutions
• 51% are in Post-92s universities

Meanwhile, of the History Units whose Environment rankings vary positively (+1 to +34 places) with a 2021 Environment score now weighted 60 (institution) / 40 (unit): 

• 38% are in Russell Group institutions
• 26% are in non-Russell-Group / Pre-1992 institutions
• 36% in Post-92s universities

Finally, in terms of Unit size:

• of the History Units with between 1 and 15 FTE, 46% rise in the ranking with an 2021 Environment score now weighted 60 (institution) / 40 (unit).
• of the History Units with between 15 and 39 FTE, 55% rise in the ranking with a similar 60:40 weighting.
• of the History Units with 40+ FTE, 62% rise in the ranking with a similar 60:40 weighting.

We can also consider the implications of the 60:40 Environment weighting, not just for this specific element (as above), but also for a Unit’s overall REF score, as modelled on REF2021 data. 

For total REF scores, variations in Units’ final rankings are less pronounced than they are for Environment alone. However, patterns are again evident when History Units are grouped by broad institutional categories. 

Thus, for final REF rankings, using 2021 data, adjusted for a 60:40 environment weighting:

• of the 35 History Units whose final rankings vary negatively (-1 to -10 places): 23% are in Russell Group institutions; 20% are in non-Russell-Group / Pre-1992 institutions; and 57% are in Post-92s universities.
• of the 32 History Units whose final rankings vary positively (+1 to +8 places): 41% are in Russell Group institutions; 34% are in non-Russell-Group / Pre-1992 institutions; and 25% are in Post-92s universities.

 

***

 

It is a major strength of past REFs that they have sought to recognise ‘excellence wherever it is found’. Subject panels read and grade outputs or submissions with regard to quality rather than provenance. 

Excellence wherever it is found remains a stated principle of REF2029. But is this now as certain as we might expect? While we should keep in mind the positive outcomes on portability, it remains the case – post pause – that disciplinary involvement in Environment is diminished. 

The existence and extent of the new institutional weighting leaves open the possibility for distortions in Unit ranking to the benefit, generally speaking, of larger, research intensive units. There is now a risk that excellence, when and where it’s found elsewhere, may now not gain the recognition it deserves.

 

---

 

Notes

[1] ‘Clear and collaborative REF 2029’, 10 December 2025, https://2029.ref.ac.uk/resources/clear-and-collaborative-ref-2029/

[2] ‘Strategy, People, and Research Environment (SPRE) guidance’, 10 December 2025, https://2029.ref.ac.uk/guidance/section-7-strategy-people-and-research-environment-guidance/

 

---

 

 

For more on the Society’s updates and responses to REF2029, and the implications of policy for historians, please see our dedicated pages.