REF 2029 Code of Practice and Equality Impact Assessments

Each Higher Education Institution (HEI) submitting to REF 2029 must have a Code of Practice (CoP) which outlines how and why decisions about the university’s submission were made. The CoP must be approved by REF 2029.

Because of changes for REF 2029, the CoP is no longer a static document. Instead, it is a living document that will be updated and reapproved as and when needed. Always consult this page for the most recent version of the CoP when needed; for instance, if making an appeal.

Purpose

This Code of Practice (CoP) for REF 2029 is a policy statement, code of practice, and its associated Equality Impact Assessments for the preparation of and submission for REF 2029 for the University of Dundee in Autumn 2028.

The University of Dundee REF Strategy and Steering Group and Convener are responsible for ensuring this Code of Practice is adhered to, reviewed and updated as needed. The University Executive Group are responsible for final decision making in relation to outcomes of processes outlined in this Code of Practice.

Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2029

1. The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the system for assessing the quality of research produced by UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to:

• Inform the allocation of block-grant research funding to HEIs based on research quality
• Provide accountability for public investment in research and produce evidence of the benefits of this investment
• Provide insights into the health of research in HEIs in the UK

2. Each Higher Education Institution (HEI) submitting to REF 2029 must have a Code of Practice (CoP) which outlines how and why key decisions about the university's submission were made, in particular:

• Identifying contracts that will contribute to the REF volume measure (which is used to calculate the number of outputs and impact case studies required for each Unit of Assessment)
• How Units of Assessment were allocated to Teaching and Research and Research Only contracts
• Selecting research outputs for submission to the REF

University of Dundee

3. Staff at the University of Dundee (hereafter also referred to as the University) who do not directly contribute to REF 2029 should be reassured that their contribution to the ambitions of the University is as valuable as colleagues who do contribute. Consistent with our institutional values, true success in REF 2029 will require all academic and professional services staff to work together in pursuit of the University's mission to transform lives by the creation, sharing and application of knowledge.
4. The University's REF2029 submission will not affect decisions in relation to any performance management, promotion, progression, extension of contract, voluntary severance, or voluntary or compulsory redundancy decisions at the University.

The Code of Practice (CoP)

5. This CoP is an updated version of the University of Dundee REF 2021 CoP with significant differences, the most important being the break between individuals (now contracts) and the submission (of outputs), which further means a process for identifying Staff Individual Circumstances is no longer required. This CoP will be approved by REF 2029 before the University's 2025/26 HESA submission, which signals the start of the continuous volume calculation.
6. Because of changes for REF 2029, this CoP document will be updated and reapproved as and when needed; readers should therefore consult the most recent version available on the University's internal SharePoint site before proceeding with any decisions related to this Code.

Part 1

Introduction

Principles

7. Consistent with our values, in developing the Code of Practice, the University has sought to ensure that the Code embodies the following three key principles.

• Robustness — The Code ensures that all policies and procedures outlined below have been determined through an open collaborative process using the REF 2029 Section 8 – Code of Practice guidance. The University has applied a consistent approach to fairly identify volume measure contracts in the institution using various data sources including contract type, job descriptions and evidence of annual research activity. Within the staff annual research review there is the opportunity to discuss contract type and pathway, with an identified process for staff to transition to a volume measure contract type if both the staff member agrees this change and there is evidence of a minimum volume and quality of research output. Annual review of all REF policies and procedures and the Equality Impact Assessment associated with this Code will determine if amendments to any of the processes included in this Code are required, which will be agreed by consultation with relevant stakeholders.
• Transparency — The Code includes responsibility for final decisions on the submission and how these decisions were determined. To ensure all staff are aware of these decision-making processes, this Code will be communicated widely to all research-active staff, including those who are absent from work or based outside of the UK. The membership of committees or groups involved in decision-making for REF 2029 will be published on the University of Dundee's internal REF SharePoint and updated as required. The final version of the Code of Practice, approved by the Scottish Funding Council (following consultation with Dundee University Students' Association, all staff unions, and all staff), will be published on the University's REF SharePoint page and will also be linked to from the People (HR Directorate) SharePoint A–Z index. The University's REF 2029 webpage will provide a link to the REF SharePoint page with the latest version of the Code for staff, and a link to the REF 2029 copy of this Code for non-staff. The Code will be made available in alternative formats, on request by e-mail to [email protected].
• Equity and inclusion — The Code aims to ensure that all staff on 'teaching and research' contracts and all staff on 'research-only' contracts who meet the REF definition of an independent researcher are included in the REF 2029 submission. It also aims to ensure that all outputs of research, as defined by REF 2029, are considered on an equal basis, with selection based on quality only and not factors such as staff role, career stage, contract type, output language or type.

Contextualisation within institutional policies

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI)

8. The University of Dundee is committed to advancing equality, diversity and inclusion for its students, staff and the community. Through maintaining a positive and supportive environment for staff, students and visitors alike, we strive to achieve our overarching strategic aim of being a high-performance community. The University's strategic goals and indicators demonstrate our overarching alignment with the SFC Outcome Agreement and the Public Sector Equality Duty (Scotland) requirements.
9. Our commitment to promote a culture of empowerment, engagement and trust has been outlined in the University of Dundee Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy 2024–2027. The strategy is built on four interlocking themes: inclusive campus communities, workforce diversity, a vibrant research culture and environment, and equity in educational achievement and experience. Four related KPIs are integral to these themes: advancing inclusivity and belonging on our campuses, improving workforce diversity, cultivating a supportive and inclusive research culture that enhances productivity and wellbeing of all researchers, and promoting equity in degree attainment and educational experience.
10. EDI is also embedded in the broader structures of the University through its current five-year strategy (to 2027). Under the People and Talent enabling strategy, the Culture theme is the commitment to:

• engage proactively in the struggle to overcome all forms of discrimination and the ongoing impacts of historical injustice, within and beyond our community, supporting the dignity, health and wellbeing of all;
• review the structure and practice of our equality, diversity and inclusion work so that it becomes fully embedded in all we do.

11. Within the 'Research with impact' enabling strategy, there is commitment to promote a culture of open research, inclusive of open access publishing and fair open data, prioritising best practice in relation to researcher integrity and inclusivity.
12. Our Mainstreaming and Equality Outcome Plans progress reports demonstrate embedding of EDI into our processes and practices to effect institutional cultural change. Our policies and practices that promote EDI include our Equality and Diversity Policy, activities related to sex and transgender (Athena SWAN), BME staff and race (Race Equality Charter) and formal staff networks and initiatives and actions through our commitment to the Concordat for the Career Development of Researchers.

Research Cultures Strategy

13. Research excellence is at the heart of the University of Dundee's vision to advance knowledge, drive innovation, and make a positive societal impact. As a university with a focus on high-impact research, we understand that the success of our research depends on the cultures we create, and is defined by the values, expectations, and behaviours that shape how we conduct, support, and communicate research. Our commitment to curiosity-driven discovery and impactful research, supported by academic excellence, a vibrant and inclusive campus, and global connectedness, extends to creating positive and inclusive research cultures and environments within the University.
14. Vision: To be a thriving diverse environment of inclusive research cultures where people and ideas excel.
15. Mission: To foster collaborative and inclusive research cultures where our community are empowered to succeed through responsible and sustainable research practices.
16. The priorities of our Research Cultures Strategy elucidate our commitment to creating a vibrant and inclusive research environment where a diversity of people, ideas, and approaches can thrive. Emerging from a triangulated breadth and depth consultation, our strategy is based on four key priorities:

• Researcher development & careers
• Cultures of good governance and integrity
• Collaborative and inclusive environments
• Sustainable research practices

17. All are underpinned by our university core values of valuing people, working together, integrity, making a difference and excellence.

Responsible Research Assessment

18. Our approach to responsible research assessment is guided by the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and our Statement of the Commitment on the Responsible Use of Metrics: the primary means of assessment should be peer review of the research content alone. The University keeps a watching brief on the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) and is developing an action plan to embed the Commitments in the assessment process where feasible.
19. Metrics may be used in those UOAs that allow them, as stated in the REF 2029 Panel Criteria and Working Methods Guidance (not yet published). Where they are used, it will be limited to outputs published more than two years ago. Specifically, a low citation rate will not be used to 'downgrade' an output, but a higher-than-average citation rate may be used as evidence of significance or impact on the discipline.
20. The responsible use of AI for research assessment is being explored by the University, in line with the principles stated in Part 1: Introduction, Principles above. Its use will not replace peer review but be an additional tool available to decision makers, who must abide by the Principles.
21. Impact is included in a regular research assessment cycle as part of wider engagement and knowledge exchange. The Impact Team are determining how impact assessment can be included in annual research reviews for individuals and Faculties. Updates will be included here at the appropriate time.

Updates on actions since REF 2021

22. Updates on actions since REF 2021:

• New Research Strategy 2022–2027 (as above)
• New EDI Strategy 2024–2027
• New Research Cultures Strategy – October 2025
• New REF governance (Appendix 3)
• New University Research and Innovation Committee sub-committee for People, Culture and Environment
• New Associate Vice Principal for Research
• New Associate Vice Principal for Innovation
• New Family Leave Policy and support for carers returning to work
• Institutional restructuring of both academic Schools to Faculties and professional service directorates
• REF 2021 EIA —
  • Gaps in information:
    • Robust data for age, disability, race, sex, part-time and fixed-term
    • Disclosure rates for religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender reassignment too low to analyse
    • Disclosure rates for disability also appear low
  • To address the above: campaigns to encourage voluntary disclosure of all protected characteristics to improve the data

↑ Back to top

Part 2

Identifying Staff Contracts with Significant Responsibility for Research (SRR)

23. The University will submit 100% of its 'Teaching and Research' (ACEMPFUN 3) contracts as identified in the annual HESA staff submission, and therefore will not require a separate process to identify staff with significant responsibility for research.

↑ Back to top

Part 3

Determining Research Independence (RI)

Policies and procedures

Criteria and evidence

24. In determining independence for 'Research Only' (ACEMPFUN 2) contracts, the following criteria will be considered in combination with evidence from People (Human Resources) data on grade, position title and role.
25. Possible criteria of independence (considered appropriate by all Main Panels):

• act as lead applicant on externally funded research projects
• hold an independently won, competitively awarded fellowship (see Appendix 2 for an indicative list produced by REF 2029) requiring research independence
• lead a research group or a substantial/specialised work package
• where research independence is an inherent expectation of a contract

26. Other possible criteria of independence (considered appropriate by Main Panels C and D only):

• being named as a co-applicant on an externally funded research grant/award
• having significant input into the design, conduct and interpretation of the research

Other evidence

27. The REF definition of independence will be met where the staff member clearly meets the definition of an individual who undertakes self-directed research, through reference to the indicators and People (Human Resources) data — noting that each indicator may not individually demonstrate independence and, where appropriate, multiple factors may need to be considered. Whilst a fellowship is not a prerequisite for independence, normally staff who hold an independently won, competitively awarded fellowship where research independence is a requirement will be independent researchers unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. The list of indicators above is not exhaustive; other indicators will also be considered where they make a substantial contribution to evidence of research independence. However, a member of staff will not be deemed to have undertaken independent research purely based on their job title or that they are named on one or more research outputs.

Decision making and communication

28. The process for determining independence will build on the current process for preparing the annual HESA return and will be managed centrally to ensure consistency across all Faculties and UOAs. The process will include the following steps:
29. A list of all 'research only' contracts at the University will be generated by Strategic Planning, indicating staff who do and do not meet the REF definition of a research assistant based on existing data, to inform the volume measure calculation for each UOA.
30. The Convener of the REF Strategy and Steering Group or nominated deputy will communicate the process for determining whether a contract meets the REF definition of independence to all 'research only' staff meeting the criteria or evidence above. Contracts classified as research assistants will be excluded. If staff believe their contract meets the REF definition of independence, they may discuss their eligibility with their Faculty Associate Vice Principal for Research and Innovation or UOA Lead.
31. The provisional decisions on which staff meet the REF definition of independence, and which do not, and the evidence on which they are based, will be provided to Faculty Associate Vice Principal for Research and Innovation and Professional Services Leads for research for review and feedback.
32. Considering feedback from Faculties, the REF Strategy and Steering Group will determine which 'research only' contracts do, and which do not, meet the REF definition of independence. The REF Strategy and Steering Group will then recommend these decisions for approval by the University Executive Group, the terms of reference and membership of which are described in Appendix 3. University Executive Group (UEG) will receive the rationale for the recommendation for each contract and may request clarification from the REF Strategy and Steering Group where it is unable to make a decision on the basis of the information provided.
33. All staff on 'research only' contracts included in the exercise (see paragraphs 25–27 above) will be informed of the decision on the research independence of their contract and of their right to appeal the decision (Appeals, paragraphs 35–38 below). The rationale for the decision, referenced to the criteria for independence detailed in this Code of Practice (paragraphs 25–27), will be provided to each member of staff by the Convener of the REF Strategy and Steering Group (or nominated deputy).
34. This process will be used to determine the volume measure for each UOA only. Staff attributed to contracts contributing to the volume measure may or may not contribute outputs to the university submission depending on outcomes of the output selection process — see Part 5: Selecting outputs below. This will be communicated clearly to each member of staff when informed of their research independence status in (e) above.
35. The process will be repeated annually during data collection for the HESA return.
36. This process will be used solely to determine which 'research only' contracts meet the eligibility criteria for return to the REF and to inform the University's HESA return; it will not be used to inform processes relating to promotion or progression. Staff on fixed-term and part-time contracts will not be treated any less favourably than comparable open-ended or full-time contracts when determining independence. All 'research only' contracts who meet the REF definition of independence, as determined by this process, will be included in HESA returns as having significant responsibility for research and be assigned to a UOA.
37. A template will be used to record decisions and the evidence on which they are based; this will be made available to Faculty Associate Vice Principals for Research and Innovation and Professional Services Leads when requesting feedback on provisional decisions, and to 'research only' staff when informing them of the decision. The final decisions of the REF Strategy and Steering Group will be recorded on the People (Human Resources) database to inform HESA returns. If required (the REF 2029 Pure module is not fully available at this time), 'research only' contracts that meet the REF definition of independence will also be recorded as eligible for submission in the REF 2029 module of Pure, the Current Research Information System which will be used to prepare the University's submission to the REF.
38. The evidence underpinning the decision-making process will be held centrally in a secure location to inform responses to any audit requests relating to the independence of contracts related to staff meeting the employment relationship requirement.
39. The list of 'research only' contracts that meet the REF definition of independence will be shared with Faculties annually each July. Where possible (subject to appeals), the final list of 'research only' contracts that meet the REF definition of an independent researcher will be determined and communicated to staff and UOA Planning Groups in September annually. An indicative timeline for the annual process is shown below.

Figure 1 — Indicative timeline for research-independence decisions, including the appeals process

When	Activity
July	Report identifying 'research only' (ACEPMFUN 2) contracts that meet the definition of research independence sent to Faculties for checking
August	Faculties send confirmed list to RIS Research for final check, with REF SSG sign-off; confirmed list approved and given final sign-off by UEG
September	RIS Research sends final confirmed list to Strategic Planning HESA submission team; decisions communicated to REF Teams and 'research only' contract-holding staff
October	HESA submission; appeals window opens to staff; EIA for the Code of Practice reviewed
November – May	Independence decisions determined and recorded in the HR record for new 'research only' (ACEPMFUN 2) contracts; appeals against independence decisions considered
May	Deadline for appeals decisions for next HESA return; appeals outcomes communicated to REF Teams and staff who appealed
June	Corrections recorded in People (HR) record HESA fields for upheld appeals

Staff, committees, and training

Roles and responsibilities

33. REF governance paper — as in Appendix 3.

Training

34. All staff will complete the following mandatory training prior to making decisions included in this Code:

• EDI training
• Unconscious bias training
• Information security awareness training
• REF decision-making training

Appeals

35. Staff on 'research only' contracts can appeal against the decision of the University Executive Group where the procedures outlined in this Code of Practice for determining research independence were not applied, or were applied incorrectly.
36. Appeals can be against the decision to categorise a researcher as either independent or not independent based upon the process as set out in this Code of Practice not being adhered to, or incorrect data used to inform the decision, only. Appeals based solely on the outcome of the process not being what is desired is not sufficient for an appeal to be upheld.

Appeals procedure

37. Members of staff who have evidence that the process was not followed, or was based on incorrect data which resulted in the wrong research independence decision, may submit a formal appeal to an independent panel. Appeals must:

• be made in writing to [email protected] adhering to a 300-word limit
• clearly state the grounds for appeal with reference to the criteria and evidence set out above in Part 3: Determining Research Independence, Policies and Procedures
• set out any new relevant information not previously considered
• use the template (Appendix 4) provided for submitting the appeal

38. Should any appeals be received, the Convener of REF SSG will establish an Appeals Panel, the terms of reference and membership of which can be found in Appendix 4. The Appeals Panel will meet once annually in May, only if an appeal is received that year. The Panel will review the information considered by the REF Strategy and Steering Group when making the original decision, and the rationale provided for that decision in the recommendation to University Executive Group, with reference to the criteria and evidence for independence outlined in this Code of Practice, considering any additional information provided by the member of staff. The decision of the Appeals Panel is final and will be relayed to the member of staff within 10 working days of the Appeals Panel meeting. RIS Research, the relevant UOA Planning Group and Main Panel Coordinating Group will also be informed if the appeal results in a change to the independence status of the member of staff for the REF. The HR record REF HESA fields will be updated by the relevant People HR business partner for that Faculty in the case of an upheld appeal. It is the responsibility of the Faculty to ensure all corrections to HR records are made. Figure 1 above includes a timeline for appeals.

Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) integration (Appendix 1)

39. Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is a planning tool to help ensure that our policies, practices and decisions are equitable and fair, meet the needs of staff, and are not inadvertently disadvantaging any protected group. EIAs will be undertaken on the policy and procedures for determining research independence, choice of UOA, and final output submission. The outcomes of EIAs will be considered and, where appropriate, action taken to address any unintended consequences of the policies and procedures on protected groups. The initial EIA on this Code of Practice is provided in Appendix 1.
40. The EIA identified no potential discrimination of staff for any protected characteristics in determining the 'research independence' status of 'research only' contracts (Appendix 1, Section 2 – EIA1). No data on any of the protected characteristics is included in the dataset where these decisions are being made. The EIA is being reviewed annually alongside this CoP, with any future unintentional impacts identified informing amendments to this CoP.
41. The policies and procedures for determining research independence in this Code of Practice are nearly identical to the policies and procedures set out in the approved University of Dundee Code of Practice for REF 2021. Changes to names of committees, governance and final decision making were updated for the REF 2029 Code of Practice. The REF Strategy and Steering Group signed off the updated process, and consultation with staff as outlined in Part 1: Introduction, Principles, Transparency, with final approval by the University Executive Group.

See also Part 1: Introduction, Updates on Actions since 2021 (para 22) above.

↑ Back to top

Part 4

Allocating Contracts to UoAs

Policies and procedures

Criteria and evidence

42. For every contract being returned to HESA with ACEMPFUN 2 & 3, a REF Unit of Assessment (UOA) will be allocated. This list of contracts will be produced by the Strategic Planning HESA Team using HR data from People Directorate.

Decision-making and communication

43. Faculties conducting the HESA checks will ensure that their research contracts have an associated UOA, which will generally be the UOA associated with that Faculty or unit within the Faculty, for each contract. REF SSG will check the REF allocation of the contracts above and make adjustments to align with wider university strategy.
44. HESA data returns, including the allocation of UOA as recommended by REF SSG, will be signed off by UEG. Once approved, REF SSG will inform Faculties and affected staff of any changes to UOA allocation from the previous year.
45. After UEG approval, the HESA data will be uploaded and submitted to HESA.
46. The above process is to occur annually in September at the HESA return preparation stage.

Staff, committees, and training

47. This section is the same as Part 3 of this Code of Practice.

Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)

EIA integration

48. The EIA considered the information included on the report used to assign contracts to UOAs and concluded that there was no resulting disadvantage to any protected characteristic group or any with multiple characteristics. During the annual HESA return process, which includes allocation of contracts to UoAs, data and analysis will provide evidence if the process needs to be updated. All changes to processes will be included in the change log in Appendix 5.

↑ Back to top

Part 5

Selecting Outputs

Policies and procedures

49. Consistent with the University's strategy to improve its UK and global reputation and ranking for research, and its expectation that all research undertaken at the University is of an internationally excellent standard, the primary criterion for selection of outputs will be quality, referenced to the criteria and level definitions for each Main Panel. The initial selection of outputs will be undertaken by UOA Planning Groups based on internal peer review, supplemented by external validation, additional information and advice from Professional Services where appropriate.

Identifying substantive link to outputs

Selecting outputs where the substantive link is current staff

50. The University will submit outputs where the substantive link will be proven by an eligible employment relationship, which is defined by REF as:

• a minimum 0.2 FTE contract for a minimum of 12 months continuous employment,
• where the role descriptor for the contract includes an explicit expectation of research activity,
• with both above conditions being met at the University of Dundee.

Selecting outputs where the substantive link is via former staff

51. Compulsory redundancy — Where staff have been made compulsorily redundant, the University will only submit those eligible outputs that were published during the eligible employment relationship, as stated in the REF 2029 guidance, Section 4: Contribution to Knowledge and Understanding (CKU), 6. Substantive link, 6.7 Exclusions, 6.7.2.
52. Resignation and voluntary redundancy or severance — Where staff have left the University by means of resignation, a voluntary redundancy or severance process, the university will submit eligible outputs published during the eligible employment relationship AND those outputs published after the eligible employment relationship, where the University enabled the research.
53. Retirement — Where staff have left the University due to retirement (including those with Emeritus status), the university will submit eligible outputs published during the eligible employment relationship AND those outputs published after the eligible employment relationship where the University enabled the research.
54. Expiration of fixed-term contracts — Where staff have left the University due to the completion of a fixed-term contract, the university will submit eligible outputs published during the eligible employment relationship AND those outputs published after the eligible employment relationship where the University enabled the research.

Selecting outputs where the substantive link is via staff on excluded contracts

55. No outputs will be included in the submission where the substantive link is via staff on an excluded contract. The list of exclusions, as published in the REF 2029 Guidance, Section 4: Contribution to Knowledge and Understanding, 6. Substantive link, 6.7 Exclusions, includes:

• PGRs (including PhD theses)
• Visiting or honorary staff
• Staff on teaching only (Teaching and Scholarship) contracts
• Staff employed on any contract with no explicit expectation of research within the role, which includes technical, teaching or support only contracts

Moving from an excluded contract above to a T&R or 'research independent' contract

56. Where staff have moved from an excluded contract type to a contract meeting the requirements for a substantive link, the University will submit eligible outputs published during the eligible employment relationship AND those outputs published before the eligible employment relationship, where the research leading to the output was enabled by the University and the contract meets the definition for continuous employment.

Assigning outputs to UOA/s

The output pool

57. The initial pool of outputs for each UOA will be determined from the University's ARKER (Annual Research and Knowledge Exchange Review) and associated Faculty processes and a mock REF exercise conducted in the first half of 2026, results of which will have been entered into the REF 2029 module of Pure. UOA Planning Groups may also propose additional outputs for review where they believe them to potentially be of high quality, including the outputs of former staff. After UOA Planning Groups have been notified of the reductions in the number of outputs after any successful unit reduction request, they will make their final submission selection. Each UOA final submission will not include more than five outputs for any one substantive link (HESA staff identifier), except in exceptional circumstances.
58. In most cases, an output will be allocated to the UOA pool mapped to the author's contract of employment. Where this results in an output sitting in a UOA where it does not map to that UOA's descriptors, it will be removed from the pool of outputs and placed in the pool of outputs for the UOA where it does map to descriptors. The decision to include or not in the final submission will be determined by the selection process of that new UOA. In cases where the UOA identified as the best match for the output is a unit not submitted by this institution (with no recorded volume measure as determined by HESA submissions), a cross-referral request will be made. Attribution of outputs to UOAs and their substantive link will be performed in the Pure REF module.
59. Selecting the highest quality outputs from the pool of eligible outputs, up to the total required for the submission, will be moderated to ensure that the 5% tolerance for outputs that do not meet the Open Access policy requirement is not exceeded.
60. Selection of outputs will be an iterative process, incorporating the review of new outputs as they become available up until approval of final submissions in March 2028. The initial and subsequent selection of outputs by UOA Planning Groups will form the basis of recommendations on the outputs to be submitted to REF SSG during this iterative process. REF SSG will provide feedback on output selection to UOA Planning Groups and make final recommendations on the outputs to be submitted to UEG. The final decision on which outputs will be submitted for each UOA will be approved by UEG.

Interdisciplinary research

61. Outputs of sufficient quality within each unit output pool and meeting the REF definition of interdisciplinary research will be treated equally with outputs aligned to one discipline.

Submitting an output to multiple UOAs

62. Where an output meets the descriptors of more than one UOA (details yet to be published in the Panel Criteria and Working Methods) to which the University is submitting, the options will be reviewed by REF SSG. Advice from Main Panel and UOA REF leads will help determine which UOA(s) it will be submitted to.

Procedures for supporting diversity of outputs

63. The University CKU submission portfolio includes outputs from all four REF Main Panels. Expertise in assessing diverse output types, including practice-based research and multi-component outputs, sits predominantly in UOA 32. To support this work, a Creative Practice group including staff from the School of Art and Design and the Library was established in 2022, with a view to regularly review potential multi-component outputs. This group evolved into the Practice Based Research Working Group in 2024. Membership of this Group lies mainly in Main Panel D UOAs currently. A first step to including more diverse output types across all Main Panels, and therefore the submission, is to expand the membership of this group with expertise in the assessment of such outputs, shared across the disciplines to build confidence of assessors and decision makers.

Representativeness

64. Outputs for submission will be selected from a pool of previously assessed outputs deemed to meet the definition of research excellence for 3* and 4* at the UOA level. After the submission of each UOA is determined based on research excellence alone, the following processes will assess to what degree they are representative of the unit. Where a need to improve representativeness is identified, the EIA will determine realistic steps that will be taken to improve performance in this area, with this CoP being updated accordingly.

Processes to ensure submitted outputs are reflective of the research strategies and structures

65. Each UOA will report the distribution of substantive links and number of outputs per sub-discipline within the UOA as defined by the REF taxonomy, as required in the Guidance for Section 7 – Strategy, People, and Research Environment (SPRE), 4.2 – Unit-level quantitative data. This data will be used to report how the submission aligns to the research strategies and structures of the UOA and provide context for the data reported.

The diversity of research process and outputs

66. All outputs that are selected by members of staff for assessment that meet the REF definition of research will be assessed on an equal and fair basis regardless of research process or output type. This will ensure the full breadth of research undertaken at the university in all its forms is included in the initial pool of outputs for submission.
67. Research diverse outputs will be assessed in line with best practice developed by the REF Practice Based Research Working Group to ensure a consistent and fair approach.
68. Outputs meeting the definition of interdisciplinary research will be assessed in all UOAs where they map to descriptors for that unit.
69. Multi-authored outputs must also have evidence of a significant contribution by the Dundee author, where required.

Contributions, collaborations and partnerships of the submitting unit and the unit's research strategies

70. The University is not planning any joint submissions with other institutions for REF 2029 and therefore does not require a process to ensure representativeness in this respect.

Policies and procedures for responsible research assessment practice

71. Outputs are assessed by Faculty panels as part of the Annual Research and Knowledge Exchange Review (ARKER); in the period 2021–2024 known as the ARR – Annual Research Review. The Faculties use paired peer review using REF definitions, quality descriptors and star levels of outputs nominated by staff with responsibility for research.
72. Academic judgements on the quality of outputs will be made by at least two reviewers using a 13-point scale. Reviewers will not score their own outputs. Agreed scores will be entered into the Pure REF 2029 Module.
73. UOA Planning Groups will attribute HESA staff identifiers matching eligible employment relationships for each output in the available output pool.
74. Consistent with the University's position as a signatory to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, and the guidance in the REF 2021 Panel Criteria and Working Methods, REF Groups involved in the selection of outputs will be instructed not to use journal impact factors or any hierarchy of journals in their assessment of outputs. Review of the research content of outputs will therefore be the primary means of assessing outputs. For disciplines covered by REF UOA sub-panels which will use citation data to inform their assessment, such data may also be used as an indicator of the academic significance of outputs to inform the internal review, taking account of the recognised limitations of citation data, as appropriate. Members of REF Groups will be required to undertake unconscious bias training in addition to equality, diversity and inclusion and information security awareness training.
75. External assessors may be asked to provide advice on the quality of outputs either: (1) on a sample basis to validate internal processes; or (2) with respect to specific outputs identified by UOA Planning Groups or REF SSG. Where external assessors are invited to comment on the quality of outputs, they will be asked to do so with reference to the criteria and level definitions for each Main Panel and in compliance with this Code of Practice.

Procedures for outputs in British Sign Language and other recognised regional languages (Scottish Gaelic and Scots)

76. Outputs in languages other than English, as noted above, will be treated equally with English language outputs and in accordance with the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 and Scottish Languages Bill (passed July 2025). Outputs will be assessed and selected for submission on the basis of their quality alone and not the language used. It will be the responsibility of Faculties to ensure the equitable assessment of outputs in languages other than English, with suitable assessors engaged to provide the assessment of quality in line with the policies and procedures for responsible research assessment practice above (paras 71–75).

Use of AI in output selection

77. The University will not use AI to make final decisions on which outputs to include in UOA submissions, but it may be one of many tools used in the selection process. AI may also be used in the preparation of the submission for REF 2029 in accordance with the Panel Criteria and Working Methods (not yet published).

Staff, committees, and training

78. This section is the same as Part 3 of this Code of Practice.

Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) on the REF 2029 submission (to follow submission in November 2028)

79. Will provide information on EIA integration including impact on the selection of outputs and policy/procedure development:

• data,
• findings,
• actions taken.

↑ Back to top

Part 6

Appendices

1. Equality Impact Assessment on the Code of Practice
2. Research Fellowships List
3. REF Governance including roles and responsibilities
4. Appeals Panel – remit and membership
5. Change Log

Appendix 1

Equality Impact Assessment for the REF 2029 Code of Practice

Section 1 — Key information

Name of policy, practice or project	The University of Dundee REF 2029 Code of Practice, which frames the University's decision-making processes in relation to REF 2029 in the context of the principles of equality, diversity and inclusion and all relevant legislation.
Summary of what the policy, practice or project is trying to achieve	The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the system for assessing research in UK Higher Education Institutions and is undertaken on behalf of the UK's Higher Education Funding Bodies. It is a process of expert review, carried out at national level, by expert panels for each of the 34 subject-based Units of Assessment (UOAs), under the guidance of four main panels. All Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) submitting to REF2029 must produce and implement a Code of Practice. This EIA applies to the entire Code, and the four core areas specified by REF 2029: Robust processes and transparent identification of staff with significant responsibility for research (SRR) and research independence (RI); Allocation of eligible contracts to UOAs; The selection of outputs; The appeals and review processes. Codes must be agreed by the HEI and submitted for examination by the Scottish Funding Council (SFC), who is responsible for approving Codes from Scottish HEIs. The University of Dundee REF 2029 Code of Practice will be submitted for approval to the SFC by 15 May 2026. SFC aims to review and approve all codes of practice for publication by August 2026. The University of Dundee, as a public sector employer, is committed to the promotion of equality, diversity, and inclusion in a supportive environment for all staff, students, and members of the wider community. The University, in carrying out its functions, actively works towards fulfilling the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) of the Equality Act 2010 to: Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation — The University will be proactive in identifying and mitigating negative impacts on staff with protected characteristics by gathering data at the appropriate point, regularly review the Code annually in consultation with the groups listed in Section 6 – Monitoring and Review, reasonably revise the Code as needed, and record changes in the Change Log in Appendix 1. Advance equality of opportunity — By removing and minimising identified disadvantages to groups of staff with a protected characteristic or multiple characteristics, providing relevant mitigations, promoting participation in review of the Code, and gathering data and information to guide decisions with an understanding of how decisions affect different protected characteristics or combinations of characteristics. Foster good relations — By engaging with diverse groups at all stages, looking for opportunities to share best practice, communicating to all throughout the processes, and developing action plans where needed to improve participation of all staff in REF. In addition, the University of Dundee is required to carry out Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) of its policies as part of the Scottish specific duties of the Act. The REF 2029 Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance document requires an EIA for the CoP: "Decisions related to staff classification, allocation of eligible contracts to UoAs, output selection, and appeals of SRR and RI fall within the scope of Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) and must therefore be assessed for their potential equality impacts." The University of Dundee is committed to embedding equality, diversity, and inclusion, and because of decoupling staff from the submission of outputs, the CoP focuses on robust processes and transparent identification of eligible contracts rather than inclusion of individuals for preparation of the REF 2029 submission, in accordance with its legal obligations under equity legislation. Consistent processes and criteria do not guarantee inequalities are eliminated, so an EIA must be completed to ensure there is no disadvantage to any staff with a specified or multiple protected characteristics. When developing the REF Code of Practice, the following EIA key principles have been followed: Anticipatory — the CoP has been developed before any final decisions are made regarding SRR, IR, allocation of UoA, selection of outputs or conducting any appeals or review process. This ensures all opportunity to remove disadvantage before the process of submission selection has been considered and implemented accordingly (as set out below in Sections 2–5). Evidence-informed — The CoP and this related EIA will continue to develop during the decision-making process, using data and evidence at that time to ensure equality considerations are taken into account. The information gathered will be used to inform the final approaches in each decision-making process outlined in the Code of Practice, with appropriate mitigations agreed and applied where needed. Proportionate but thorough — Processes outlined in the REF 2029 CoP have been streamlined compared to the University of Dundee REF 2021 CoP, while adhering to the new REF 2029 CoP guidance and in keeping with the principles of robustness, transparency, and equity and inclusion. Inclusive of multiple characteristics — Where possible, data on multiple characteristics will be provided. Where it cannot be provided, the University will encourage staff to disclose. Any identified trends of multiple-characteristic groups will be considered separately and equally with single protected characteristic groups. Transparent and recorded — the REF 2029 CoP for the University describes the processes and principles guiding decision making, with relevant documents shared with staff where appropriate or securely stored where necessary for auditing purposes. Ongoing — the REF 2029 CoP for the University describes how the Code will be reviewed annually throughout the REF 2029 period and following submission for REF in November 2028, to ensure it continues to meet the needs of the PSED, REF, the University, and all University staff. The University is committed to conducting six EIAs during the REF 2029 process. EIA 1–5 align to the entire document and four core areas, with EIA 6 analysing the University submission with relevant data and evidence: EIA 1: The Code of Practice EIA 2: Identifying SRR and research independence EIA 3: Allocating eligible contracts to a UoA EIA 4: Selecting outputs for submission EIA 5: Appeals and reviewing processes EIA 6: Final submission and analysis EIA 1–5 will be included in an appendix of the REF 2029 Code of Practice document. EIA 6 will be published online following submission in November 2028. Each EIA will be reviewed by the University's REF Strategy and Steering Group. All completed EIAs will be published on the University's REF 2029 and REF SharePoint pages, with links in the People (HR) SharePoint A–Z. The purpose of this policy is to: Apply the Code of Practice to all members of staff involved in the REF processes, as well as any REF external advisers engaged by the University. Demonstrate that the University is operating in a fair, equitable, transparent, consistent, accountable and inclusive manner, and within the confines of the relevant equalities and employment legislation. Promote an inclusive environment where processes established enable the University to identify all eligible contracts and outputs for submission to REF 2029. Provide transparent information about the committees/groups and individuals involved in the preparation of the REF submission, including their terms of reference, membership, roles, and record-keeping procedures. Ensure that the processes for identification of 'research-only' staff who meet the REF definition of research independence; allocation of eligible contracts to a UoA; selection of outputs; and appeals and review processes, are consistent across all UoAs. Ensure that all eligible staff are fully aware of the decision-making processes for determining research independence, allocation of UoA, selecting outputs, and appeal processes. Inform staff about the processes and mechanisms available for making appeals. Ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the University's communication plan regarding the REF process. Provide clear guidance on what training needs to be provided and which staff will need to participate to fulfil the requirements of the REF process. This EIA, like the CoP it applies to, is a living document and will be reviewed annually alongside the CoP. If, after review, the CoP is rewritten to include a significant change, this EIA will be updated so that it consistently reflects the latest version of the University's REF CoP. All changes will be shown in the change log for this EIA, which can be found in Appendix 1. This process of review, change and updating the change log of the EIA will continue after submission to REF 2029 into the following research assessment exercise period.
Reason for the EIA	This EIA is needed for the updated REF 2029 Code of Practice for the University of Dundee and supersedes the REF 2021 Code of Practice for the University of Dundee. (Marked: change to existing policy/practice.)
Lead person	Research Excellence Manager
Directorate/School	Research and Innovation
Date EIA commenced	15/05/2026
EIA review date	The EIA will be reviewed annually in July–October, in line with HESA return preparations as stated in the Code of Practice.
Authorising sign-off	Vice Principal Research and Innovation
Date of sign-off	28/04/2026

Section 2 — EIA1: Code of Practice document

This EIA applies to the entire Code of Practice document. The Code has followed the REF 2029 guidance and template. EIAs for specific processes outlined in the Code, as stated above, are included in Sections 2–5 below.

Part 1 — Assessment of impact

Age	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of age.
Disability	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of disability. If reasonable adjustments necessitate a reduction in outputs, then this will be proportionately supported to address potential indirect discrimination.
Gender identity	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of gender identity. The University of Dundee does not collect data in relation to gender identity, but where we become aware of any instances of potential indirect discrimination then these will be addressed.
Marriage and civil partnership	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of marriage and civil partnership status. This protected characteristic is only relevant in the context of employment.
Pregnancy and maternity	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of pregnancy and maternity status. Where maternity leave has produced a reduction in working hours, then this can be mitigated against.
Race	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of race. Data will continue to be monitored, and if instances of potential indirect discrimination become apparent then this will be addressed as a priority.
Religion and belief	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of religion or belief. Data will continue to be monitored, and if instances of potential indirect discrimination become apparent then this will be addressed as a priority.
Sex	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of sex. Data will continue to be monitored, and if instances of potential indirect discrimination become apparent then this will be addressed as a priority.
Sexual orientation	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of sexual orientation. Data will continue to be monitored, and if instances of potential indirect discrimination become apparent then this will be addressed as a priority.
Language and linguistics	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of language or linguistics. Data will continue to be monitored, and if instances of potential indirect discrimination become apparent then this will be addressed as a priority.
Multiple characteristics	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of multiple characteristics. Data will continue to be monitored, and if instances of potential indirect discrimination become apparent then this will be addressed as a priority.

If potential discrimination is identified: No potential discrimination identified for any protected characteristics.

Part 2 — Equality Impact Assessment outcome

Outcome selected: Outcome 1 — No change.

Section 3 — EIA2: Determining SRR and Research Independence (RI)

Criteria and processes used to determine SRR (CoP para 23): The University will submit 100% of its 'Teaching and Research' (ACEMPFUN 3) contracts as identified in the annual HESA staff submission and therefore will not require a separate process to identify staff with significant responsibility for research.

Criteria used to determine RI (CoP para 24–27): In determining independence for 'Research Only' (ACEMPFUN 2) contracts, the following criteria will be considered in combination with evidence from People (Human Resources) data on grade, position title and role.

Possible criteria of independence (considered appropriate by all Main Panels): act as lead applicant on externally funded research projects; hold an independently won, competitively awarded fellowship (see Appendix 2) requiring research independence; lead a research group or a substantial/specialised work package; where research independence is an inherent expectation of a contract.

Other possible criteria (Main Panels C and D only): being named as a co-applicant on an externally funded research grant/award; having significant input into the design, conduct and interpretation of the research.

Other evidence: The REF definition of independence will be met where the staff member clearly meets the definition of an individual who undertakes self-directed research, through reference to the indicators and People (Human Resources) data — noting that each indicator may not individually demonstrate independence and, where appropriate, multiple factors may need to be considered. A fellowship is not a prerequisite for independence; staff will not be deemed independent purely based on job title or being named on one or more research outputs.

Processes used to determine RI (CoP para 28–29): the process builds on the current HESA return process and is managed centrally for consistency across Faculties and UOAs, following the seven steps (a)–(g) set out in Part 3 above, culminating in REF SSG determination, UEG approval, and annual repetition during HESA data collection. It will not be used to inform promotion or progression decisions, and fixed-term/part-time staff are not treated less favourably.

Assessment of criteria and processes used to determine SRR and RI

1. Are proportionate, evidence-based, and accessible across all relevant staff groups — The reports upon which the decisions on SRR and RI are made are produced by the Strategic Planning team using data held within the HR database. Monthly staff reports are reviewed by the Research and Innovation Services team and anomalies in data are queried and corrected. All T&R contracts are tagged as SRR, so no data needs to be shared with staff. All Research Only contracts will have their RI designation signed off by REF Strategy and Steering Group, with results communicated to staff annually. The Appeals Process will be included in this communication for staff who do not agree with their RI status.
2. Avoid excluding or disadvantaging staff with protected characteristics — The reports upon which the decision on SRR and RI are made do not include protected characteristics data. While some protected characteristics may be assumed for data such as name and start of contract, they are not used in the decision-making process.
3. Have been implemented with due regard to equality at the point of decision making — All contracts are included in the reports and processes above. There is no selection of contracts for the process of determining SRR and RI, and therefore due regard to equality is achieved.

Part 1 — Assessment of impact

Age	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of age. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Disability	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of disability. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Gender identity	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of gender identity. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Marriage and civil partnership	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of marriage and civil partnership status. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Pregnancy and maternity	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of pregnancy and maternity status. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Race	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of race. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Religion and belief	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of religion or belief. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Sex	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of sex. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic. Women are more likely to be on part-time or fixed-term contracts and, as outlined above, these contracts will not be treated any differently when determining independence.
Sexual orientation	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of sexual orientation. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Language and linguistics	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of language or linguistics. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Multiple characteristics	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of multiple characteristics. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.

If potential discrimination is identified: No potential discrimination identified for any protected characteristics.

Part 2 — Equality Impact Assessment outcome

Outcome selected: Outcome 1 — No change.

Section 4 — EIA3: Allocating eligible contracts to a Unit of Assessment

Approach and decision making (CoP para 42–46):

Criteria and evidence: For every contract being returned to HESA with ACEMPFUN 2 & 3, a REF Unit of Assessment (UOA) will be allocated. This list of contracts will be produced by the Strategic Planning HESA Team using HR data from People Directorate.

Decision-making: Faculties conducting the HESA checks will ensure that their research contracts have an associated UOA, which will generally be the UOA associated with that Faculty or unit within the Faculty, for each contract. REF SSG will check the REF allocation of the contracts above and make adjustments to align with wider university strategy. HESA data returns, including the allocation of UOA as recommended by REF SSG, will be signed off by UEG. Once approved, REF SSG will inform Faculties and affected staff of any changes to UOA allocation from the previous year. After UEG approval, the HESA data will be uploaded and submitted to HESA. The above process is to occur annually in September at the HESA return preparation stage.

Part 1 — Assessment of impact

Age	All academic research contracts are allocated to a suitable UoA regardless of age. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Disability	All academic research contracts are allocated to a suitable UoA regardless of disability. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Gender identity	All academic research contracts are allocated to a suitable UoA regardless of gender identity. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Marriage and civil partnership	All academic research contracts are allocated to a suitable UoA regardless of marriage and civil partnership status. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Pregnancy and maternity	All academic research contracts are allocated to a suitable UoA regardless of pregnancy and maternity status. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Race	All academic research contracts are allocated to a suitable UoA regardless of race. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Religion and belief	All academic research contracts are allocated to a suitable UoA regardless of religion or belief. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Sex	All academic research contracts are allocated to a suitable UoA regardless of sex. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Sexual orientation	All academic research contracts are allocated to a suitable UoA regardless of sexual orientation. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Language and linguistics	All academic research contracts are allocated to a suitable UoA regardless of language or linguistics. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.
Multiple characteristics	All academic research contracts are allocated to a suitable UoA regardless of multiple characteristics. The report upon which these decisions are made does not include data on this protected characteristic.

If potential discrimination is identified: No potential discrimination identified for any protected characteristics.

Part 2 — Equality Impact Assessment outcome

Outcome selected: Outcome 1 — No change.

Section 5 — EIA4: Selecting outputs for submission

Selection process and decision criteria (CoP para 49): Consistent with the University's strategy to improve its UK and global reputation and ranking for research, and its expectation that all research undertaken at the University is of an internationally excellent standard, the primary criterion for selection of outputs will be quality, referenced to the criteria and level definitions for each Main Panel. The initial selection of outputs will be undertaken by UOA Planning Groups based on internal peer review, supplemented by external validation (AI-generated scores and justifications) and advice from Professional Services where appropriate.

Output assessment process (CoP para 71–72 and 74–75): Outputs are assessed by Faculty panels as part of ARKER. Academic judgements are made by at least two reviewers using a 13-point scale; reviewers do not score their own outputs; agreed scores are entered into the Pure REF 2029 Module. Consistent with DORA, REF Groups will not use journal impact factors or journal hierarchies; citation data may inform assessment for relevant sub-panels, with its limitations recognised. Members of REF Groups undertake unconscious bias, EDI and information security awareness training. External assessors may validate a sample or specific outputs, referencing the criteria and level definitions for each Main Panel. Outputs in languages other than English (BSL, Scottish Gaelic, Scots) are treated equally with English-language outputs, assessed on quality alone.

Part 1 — Assessment of impact

Age	All eligible outputs are considered for submission regardless of age.
Disability	All eligible outputs are considered for submission regardless of disability.
Gender identity	All eligible outputs are considered for submission regardless of gender identity.
Marriage and civil partnership	All eligible outputs are considered for submission regardless of marriage and civil partnership status.
Pregnancy and maternity	All eligible outputs are considered for submission regardless of pregnancy and maternity status.
Race	All eligible outputs are considered for submission regardless of race.
Religion and belief	All eligible outputs are considered for submission regardless of religion or belief.
Sex	All eligible outputs are considered for submission regardless of sex.
Sexual orientation	All eligible outputs are considered for submission regardless of sexual orientation.
Language and linguistics	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of language or linguistics.
Multiple characteristics	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of multiple characteristics.

If potential discrimination is identified: Within the process there is reliance on staff to nominate outputs for the annual output review process. Staff who may not be in work because of an approved absence (e.g. illness, pregnancy, religious ceremony, etc.) at that time may not be able to select outputs for review. To account for this, during the mock REF 2026 exercise, UoA Leads were given a report of all outputs published and recorded in Pure during the REF-eligible period for all contracts associated with that UoA, so that they may nominate any unscored outputs for review and assessment for REF 2029 submission. UoA Assessment panels must provide an EDI statement explaining how the panel fairly reflects the diversity of the unit and consider progression planning actions to maintain or improve representation. It will be the responsibility of Faculties to ensure the equitable assessment of outputs in languages other than English, with suitable assessors engaged.

Part 2 — Equality Impact Assessment outcome

Outcome selected: Outcome 3 — Continue the policy, practice or policy but acknowledge potential risks. Potential risk described above has been mitigated as described. Analyse effect and amend as needed at annual review of the Code of Practice and this associated EIA.

Section 6 — EIA5: Appeals and review processes

The appeal mechanism (CoP para 35–38): Staff on 'research only' contracts can appeal against the decision of UEG where the procedures for determining research independence were not applied, or were applied incorrectly. Appeals can be against the categorisation decision on the basis of process not being followed or incorrect data being used only — not on the outcome alone being undesired.

Appeals procedure: Staff with evidence that the process was not followed, or was based on incorrect data, may submit a formal appeal to an independent panel, in writing to [email protected], within a 300-word limit, stating grounds with reference to the criteria and evidence in Part 3, setting out any new relevant information, and using the provided template. The Convener of REF SSG establishes an Appeals Panel (terms of reference and membership in Appendix 4), which meets once annually in May if an appeal is received. The Panel reviews the original decision and rationale against the criteria and evidence for independence, considering any additional information provided. The decision is final and relayed within 10 working days. RIS Research, the relevant UOA Planning Group and Main Panel Coordinating Group are informed of any change in status; HR records are updated by the relevant People HR business partner, with the Faculty responsible for ensuring corrections are made.

Policies and procedures / decision making and communication (CoP para 28.e): All staff on 'research only' contracts included in the exercise will be informed of the decision on the research independence of their contract and of their right to appeal. The rationale, referenced to the criteria for independence, will be provided by the Convener of the REF Strategy and Steering Group (or nominated deputy).

Analysis of data arising from the appeals process will be analysed for trends and to inform if a protected characteristic or multiple-characteristics group is being unfairly disadvantaged. Results may inform revision of the Code and this EIA.

Part 1 — Assessment of impact

Age	All academic research contracts are eligible to appeal their SRR or RI status regardless of age. Data will be monitored throughout any appeals process to understand potential areas of concern that may indicate potential discrimination.
Disability	All academic research contracts are eligible to appeal their SRR or RI status regardless of disability. Data will be monitored throughout any appeals process to understand potential areas of concern that may indicate potential discrimination.
Gender identity	All academic research contracts are eligible to appeal their SRR or RI status regardless of gender identity. Data will be monitored throughout any appeals process to understand potential areas of concern that may indicate potential discrimination.
Marriage and civil partnership	All academic research contracts are eligible to appeal their SRR or RI status regardless of marriage and civil partnership status. Data will be monitored throughout any appeals process to understand potential areas of concern that may indicate potential discrimination.
Pregnancy and maternity	All academic research contracts are eligible to appeal their SRR or RI status regardless of pregnancy and maternity status. Data will be monitored throughout any appeals process to understand potential areas of concern that may indicate potential discrimination.
Race	All academic research contracts are eligible to appeal their SRR or RI status regardless of race. Data will be monitored throughout any appeals process to understand potential areas of concern that may indicate potential discrimination.
Religion and belief	All academic research contracts are eligible to appeal their SRR or RI status regardless of religion or belief. Data will be monitored throughout any appeals process to understand potential areas of concern that may indicate potential discrimination.
Sex	All academic research contracts are eligible to appeal their SRR or RI status regardless of sex. Data will be monitored throughout any appeals process to understand potential areas of concern that may indicate potential discrimination.
Sexual orientation	All academic research contracts are eligible to appeal their SRR or RI status regardless of sexual orientation. Data will be monitored throughout any appeals process to understand potential areas of concern that may indicate potential discrimination.
Language and linguistics	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of language or linguistics. Data will continue to be monitored, and if instances of potential indirect discrimination become apparent then this will be addressed as a priority.
Multiple characteristics	All academic research contracts are eligible regardless of multiple characteristics. Data will continue to be monitored, and if instances of potential indirect discrimination become apparent then this will be addressed as a priority.

If potential discrimination is identified: No potential discrimination identified for any protected characteristics.

Part 2 — Equality Impact Assessment outcome

Outcome selected: Outcome 1 — No change.

Section 7 — EIA6: Final submission data and analysis (to follow submission)

This section will be completed after the University's final submission has been made in November 2028. It will include:

• EDI data of the submission
• Analysis to determine if consistently applied processes resulted in unintended disadvantages to any particular protected characteristics group of staff or staff with multiple protected characteristics
• Suggested amendments to the CoP document to eliminate or reduce the disadvantages identified

Part 1 — Assessment of impact

Age	TBC
Disability	TBC
Gender identity	TBC
Marriage and civil partnership	TBC
Pregnancy and maternity	TBC
Race	TBC
Religion and belief	TBC
Sex	TBC
Sexual orientation	TBC
Language and linguistics	TBC
Multiple characteristics	TBC

If potential discrimination is identified: TBC

Part 2 — Equality Impact Assessment outcome

Outcome: Not yet determined.

Section 8 — Monitoring and review

Describe how the policy, practice or project will be monitored to ensure that actual impacts are identified

This EIA will be reviewed annually alongside the CoP. This review will consider: Changes in REF governance Changes to University systems or processes Results of appeals made by staff, if relevant, to prevent future appeals and improve the process Any unjustified disadvantage identified when applying processes consistently and neutrally, informed by: Appeal/s analysis by protected characteristic and multiple characteristics Feedback from all REF Leaders applying CoP processes within their Faculty or UOA Feedback from Professional Services staff when analysing annual data of process outcomes Feedback from staff unions, student bodies, EDI sub-committee, Research Committee and/or UEG A final EIA on the University's final submission will provide data in which any impacts of the CoP processes will be identified. Any adverse impacts identified will be mitigated or eliminated in an updated version of the CoP, while also considering if any positive impacts have occurred that can inform improvement in the CoP.

When is the policy or practice due for review?

The CoP will be reviewed annually in July–October, in line with HESA return preparations. If review results in change(s) to the CoP, this EIA will be amended and updated accordingly.

Appendix 1 (to the EIA) — Change log for the EIA

Updated on	Paragraph number	Original content	Updated content
No entries recorded to date.

↑ Back to top

Appendix 2

Research Fellowships List

The list below is taken from the REF 2029 website. This list is not exhaustive; staff are encouraged to make an appeal where a relevant fellowship has not been considered when determining their research independence status.

AHRC

• AHRC Leadership Fellowships – Early Career Researchers
• AHRC Leadership Fellowships

BBSRC

• BBSRC David Phillips Fellowships
• BBSRC Discovery Fellowships

British Academy

• BA/Leverhulme Senior Research Fellowships
• British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowships
• JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowships
• Mid-Career Fellowships
• Newton Advanced Fellowships
• Newton International Fellowships
• Wolfson Research Professorships

British Heart Foundation

• BHF-Fulbright Commission Scholar Awards
• Career Re-entry Research Fellowships
• Clinical Research Leave Fellowships
• Intermediate Basic Science Research Fellowships
• Intermediate Clinical Research Fellowships
• Senior Basic Science Research Fellowships
• Senior Clinical Research Fellowships
• Springboard Award for Biomedical Researchers
• Starter Grants for Clinical Lecturers

Cancer Research UK

• Advanced Clinician Scientist Fellowship
• Career Development Fellowship
• Career Establishment Award
• Senior Cancer Research Fellowship

EPSRC

• EPSRC Early Career Fellowship
• EPSRC Established Career Fellowship
• EPSRC Postdoctoral Fellowship*

ESRC

• ESRC Future Cities Catapult Fellowship
• ESRC Future Leaders Grant
• ESRC Postdoctoral Fellowship*
• ESRC/Turing Fellowships
• ESRC/UKRI Early Career Researcher Innovation Fellowships

European Research Council

• ERC Advanced Grants
• ERC Consolidator Grants
• ERC Starting Grants

Health Education England

• Integrated Clinical Academic Programme Clinical Lectureship*
• Integrated Clinical Academic Programme Senior Clinical Lectureship

Leverhulme Trust

• Early Career Fellowship
• Emeritus Fellowship
• International Academic Fellowship
• Major Research Fellowship
• Research Fellowship

MRC

• MRC Career Development Awards*
• MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowships*
• MRC New Investigator Research Grants (Clinical)*
• MRC New Investigator Research Grants (Non-clinical)*
• Senior Clinical Fellowships
• Senior Non-Clinical Fellowships

NC3R

• David Sainsbury Fellowship
• Training fellowship

NERC

• Independent Research Fellowships
• NERC/UKRI Industrial Innovation Fellowships
• NERC/UKRI Industrial Mobility Fellowships

NIHR

• Advanced Fellowship*
• Career Development Fellowship
• Clinical Lectureships*
• Clinician Scientist*
• Post-Doctoral Fellowship*
• Research Professorships
• School for Primary Care Post-Doctoral Fellowships*
• Senior Research Fellowships

Royal Academy of Engineering

• Industrial Fellowships
• RAEng Engineering for Development Research Fellowship
• RAEng Research Fellowship
• RAEng Senior Research Fellowship
• UK Intelligence Community (IC) Postdoctoral Research Fellowship

Royal Society

• Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship*
• JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship
• Newton Advanced Fellowship
• Royal Society/Leverhulme Trust Senior Research Fellowship
• Royal Society Wolfson Fellowship
• University Research Fellowship*

Royal Society and Wellcome Trust

• Sir Henry Dale Fellowship*

Royal Society of Edinburgh

• RSE Arts & Humanities Awards (for permanent staff)
• RSE Personal Research Fellowship
• RSE Sabbatical Research Grants (for permanent staff)

Sêr Cymru

• Recapturing Talent*
• Research Chairs
• Research fellowships for 3–5 year postdocs
• Rising Stars

STFC

• CERN Fellowships
• Ernest Rutherford Fellowship
• ESA Fellowships
• Innovations Partnership Scheme Fellowships
• Returner Fellowships
• RSE/STFC Enterprise Fellowships
• Rutherford International Fellowship Programme

UKRI

• UKRI Future Leaders Fellowships
• UKRI Innovation Fellowships

Wellcome Trust

• Intermediate Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine
• Principal Research Fellowships
• Research Award for Health Professionals
• Research Career Development Fellowship
• Research Fellowship in Humanities and Social Science
• Senior Research Fellowship

↑ Back to top

Appendix 3

REF Governance Structure

University REF 2029 governance organogram

The full governance diagram (REF 2029 committee structure — reporting lines shown solid, working connections shown dashed) is published on the University's REF governance page rather than reproduced here: www.dundee.ac.uk/ref/governance.

The terms of reference and membership for each group in the governance structure are set out below.

Terms of reference and membership

University Executive Group (UEG)

The University Executive Group provides leadership to the University. It is accountable to University Court for performing to the budget approved by the University Court and responsible for safeguarding the University's reputation and external profile. The UEG is responsible for signing off final decisions for the University's REF submission as recommended by the REF Strategy and Steering Group (REF SSG). It can also make recommendations to REF SSG on preparations of the submission.

Membership

• Principal and Vice-Chancellor
• Vice-Principal (Education and Student Experience)
• Vice-Principal (Global Engagement & Future Students)
• Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation)
• Vice-Principal (Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences)
• Vice-Principal (Faculty of Health)
• Vice-Principal (Faculty of Life Sciences)
• Vice-Principal (Faculty of Science, Engineering and Business)
• University Secretary
• Chief Operating Officer
• Chief People Officer
• Chief Finance Officer

Other members may be asked to attend only when specific items are being considered.

Meeting frequency and administrative support

UEG meets at least every fortnight from September–June annually. Meetings are supported by the Executive Admin Team in the Executive Office.

Training

All members of the UEG must complete the University's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and Information Security Awareness training prior to serving on the Group. Members will also be required to complete REF specific EDI training once it has been developed and prior to final submission decision making.

Reporting

The REF Strategy and Steering Group will report to the UEG for sign off of final submission decisions.

Notes / version history

These terms of reference and the membership list will be subject to annual review as part of the EIA for the REF 2029 Code of Practice and may be amended as REF preparations progress. This is Version 1 of these Terms of Reference for the UEG with respect to REF governance only.

Terms of reference and membership

REF Strategy and Steering Group (REF SSG)

The REF Strategy and Steering Group (REF SSG) is responsible for developing the strategy of the university submission for the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2029. It will have oversight and authority for final decisions on the submission and will be the lead decision maker for the size and shape of the return; these decisions will be signed off by UEG. Responsibilities include (but are not limited to) consideration of:

• Lessons learned from REF 2021 that can contribute to improvements for the submission to REF 2029
• Areas where targeted investment and resource allocation could significantly enhance REF outcomes
• The decision making and reporting structure for preparation of the submission (including oversight of the Main Panel Groups and UoA Planning Groups)
• The optimal UoA configuration for submission, including potential for joint submissions with other institutions
• Interrogating and reviewing Mock REF outcomes, modelling exercises and ongoing quality reviews
• Determining the data required to best evidence the submission at UoA and institutional level
• Interrogating and reviewing data relevant to future reviews and the submission
• Maintaining oversight of HESA volume measure data to inform optimisation of the size and shape of the submission
• Interrogating, reviewing and signing off the University's Code of Practice and related EIAs for REF 2029
• Providing guidance to Schools on how to support staff who are appointed to REF 2029 roles

Membership

• Vice Principal Research and Innovation (Convener)
• Director of Research and Innovation Services (RIS)
• Head of Research Excellence, Policy and Governance
• Main Panel Leads (Panels A–D)
• Deputy Director (EDI) People
• University Librarian and Director
• Director of Strategic Planning and Insights
• University Archivist and Assistant Director* for University Librarian and Director
• Impact Manager*
• PGR Office Representative*
• Head of Research Finance Services*
• Director of Communications and Public Affairs (External Relations)*

*These members may be asked to attend only when specific items are being considered. The REF SSG may also invite additional members of staff to meetings to inform discussions which would benefit from their expertise.

Meeting frequency and administrative support

The REF SSG will meet a minimum of four times per year and will be supported by the PA for the VPRI. Meeting frequency will increase to every other month in 2027 and monthly in 2028. Meetings in 2029 will focus on reviewing the process of delivery for REF 2029.

Training

All members of the REF SSG must complete the University's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and Information Security Awareness training prior to serving on the Group. Members will also be required to complete REF specific EDI training once it has been developed and prior to final submission decision making.

Reporting

The REF SSG will report to the University Executive Group (UEG) for official sign off of decisions and the University Research Committee (URC) for information only. The REF SSG will receive reports/minutes, analysis and recommendations from the REF Operational Group, Main Panel Groups and UoA Planning Groups and other groups as necessary.

Notes / version history

These terms of reference and the membership list will be subject to annual review as part of the EIA for the REF 2029 Code of Practice and may be amended as REF preparations progress. This is Version 2 of the REF Governance document for REF 2029, after review completed at end of AY 2024/25 in response to newly published guidelines and current university environment.

Terms of reference and membership

REF Operational Group (REF OG)

The REF Operational Group (REF OG) is responsible for planning, collecting data, analysis and reporting for the university submission for REF 2029. It will make recommendations to REF SSG for preparation of the submission and will plan and execute Mock REF exercises and modelling for data-driven REF decision making. Responsibilities include (but are not limited to) consideration of:

• Lessons learned from REF 2021 that can contribute to improvements for the submission to REF 2029
• Identifying areas that would benefit from targeted investment and resource allocation, and bringing them to the attention of REF SSG
• Delivering reports for REF SSG on all three elements of the REF submission
• Collating information and data from the other REF working groups, conducting analysis and modelling, and providing recommendations to REF SSG
• The optimal UoA configuration for submission, including potential for joint submissions with other institutions
• Reporting to REF SSG on Mock REF outcomes, modelling exercises and ongoing quality reviews
• Providing the data required to best evidence the submission at UoA and institutional level
• Providing data relevant to future reviews and the submission
• Reporting eligible contract FTE by UoA as submitted to HESA and determining the impact on the number of outputs and impact case studies required
• Writing and consulting widely for the University's Code of Practice and related EIAs for REF 2029

Membership

• Head of Research Excellence, Policy and Governance, Research and Innovation Services (Convener)
• Faculty Associate Vice Principals Research and Innovation
• Head of Business Intelligence, Strategic Planning and Insights
• PGR Data and Journey, PGR Office
• EDI Data Analyst, People
• Open Research and Publishing Services Manager, Library
• Practice Based Research Group Convener, Library
• Research Librarian, Library
• Research Excellence Manager, Research and Innovation Services
• Research Impact Manager, Research and Innovation Services
• PS REF Leads, Schools (to be determined by Faculties)
• Researcher Advancement and Culture Manager, Research and Innovation Services*
• Head of PGR/Doctoral Academy*
• Head of Financial Accounting*
• Statutory Returns and Management Information Manager*
• TBC*

*Other members may be asked to attend only when specific items are being considered. The REF OG may also invite additional members of staff to meetings to inform discussions which would benefit from their expertise.

Meeting frequency and administrative support

The REF OG will meet a minimum of four times per year, supported by the University Research Excellence, Policy and Governance team. Meetings are arranged following REF SSG meetings so information and tasks can be allocated ready for reporting to the next REF SSG meeting. Frequency will increase to every other month in 2027 and monthly in 2028.

Training

All members of the REF OG must complete the University's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and Information Security Awareness training prior to serving on the Group. Members will also be required to complete REF specific EDI training once it has been developed and prior to final submission decision making.

Reporting

The REF OG will report to the REF Strategy and Steering Group (REF SSG) to provide analysis, options and recommendations to enable informed, data-driven decisions. The REF OG will receive reports/minutes, analysis and recommendations from the Practice Based Research Group, Main Panel Groups and UoA Planning Groups and other groups as necessary.

Notes / version history

These terms of reference and the membership list will be subject to annual review as part of the EIA for the REF 2029 Code of Practice and may be amended as REF preparations progress. This is Version 1 of these Terms of Reference for the REF Operational Group. The group was established after a review of REF governance completed at end of AY 2024/25, in response to newly published guidelines and current university environment.

Terms of reference

REF Practice Based Research Group

The responsibilities of the Practice Based Research REF Group include (but are not limited to):

• Within the context of a REF submission, identifying and responding to challenges facing research practitioners regarding the review, assessment, and dissemination of their research
• Undertaking a deep-dive investigation into non-traditional outputs submitted to REF2021 — informing REF SSG of what worked well and whether a different approach could have produced better results. "Non-traditional outputs" refers to outputs defined by REF2021 guidance as Physical Artefacts, Exhibitions and Performances, Other Documents, Digital Artefacts, Other, and Multiple Component Outputs (MCOs)
• A deep-dive review should involve, but not be limited to:
  • An investigation into the University of Dundee REF2021 output review and grading process, to learn from what worked well and what worked less well
  • Developing an understanding of the processes implemented by the School of Art and Design, and the Library, to create records for, and evidence of, non-traditional outputs
  • An analysis of our own, and other universities', submissions to identify examples of good practice, including format, presentation and associated narrative texts
• Following analysis of formatting and presentation, identifying potential options for recommendation to REF SSG regarding the digital presentation of non-traditional outputs
• Following analysis of the 300-word narratives, and in alignment with REF guidance, producing resources, training and advice to improve the expression of originality, significance and rigour
• Maintaining awareness of REF guidance and requirements as they are released, with special attention to non-traditional outputs
• Developing an understanding of how non-traditional outputs and evidence of impact are recorded in Pure, for presentation to internal and external reviewers
• Developing a timetable for key submission milestones, consistent with the REF SSG timetable
• Supporting UoA leads preparing their unit's submission to the Mock REF and other review processes, where non-traditional outputs are included

Membership

The Practice Based Research REF Group will consist of four academic research practitioners and three Library Research Services staff. One member with significant experience of research assessment and REF submission will act as the Group Lead.

Administrative support

Administrative support will be provided by the Library. Consideration should be given to workload implications for both academic and professional services staff.

Training

All members must have completed the University's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and Information Security Awareness training prior to serving on the Group. Members may be required to undertake additional training as the submission develops.

Reporting

The Practice Based Research Group will provide information to the REF Operational Group as required, to be reported up to REF SSG.

Notes / version history

These terms of reference will be subject to further consultation and Equality Impact Assessment as the Code of Practice is prepared, and may be amended as REF preparations progress. This is Version 1; the group was established in AY 2024/25.

Terms of reference

REF Main Panel Groups

Four Main Panel Groups will oversee the preparation of the REF submission aligned to the REF main panel areas:

• Main Panel A — Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
• Main Panel B — Physical Sciences, Engineering and Mathematics
• Main Panel C — Social Sciences
• Main Panel D — Arts and Humanities

The responsibilities of each Main Panel Group include (but are not limited to):

• Overseeing the development of submissions from each UoA within its remit, in accordance with and as approved by REF SSG
• Reviewing draft submissions to the mock REF and other similar review exercises
• Reviewing the size and shape of submissions across their Main Panel area, formulating recommendations reported and minuted by REF SSG
• Working with UoA Leads and other Main Panel Groups to make recommendations to REF SSG on any boundary issues between UoAs
• Working closely with the REF Operational Group to review all elements of draft submissions
• Reporting on preparedness and making recommendations on optimisation and approval of UoA submissions to REF SSG
• Ensuring, in collaboration with the University's REF EDI Group, that submissions comply with the University's REF 2029 Code of Practice

Membership

• Main Panel Lead (Chair)
• UoA Leads for all relevant UoAs (a deputy must attend if the Lead is unavailable)
• Head of Research Excellence, Policy & Governance team, RIS
• Impact Manager, RIS
• Research Excellence Manager, RIS
• Open Research and Publishing Services Manager, Library

Meeting frequency and administrative support

Main Panel Groups will meet a minimum of four times per year (more often when required), supported by the University Research Excellence, Policy & Governance team.

Training

All members must have completed the University's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and Information Security Awareness training prior to serving on the Group. Members may be required to undertake additional training as the submission develops.

Reporting

Main Panel Groups will report on activity/recommendations to the REF Operational Group via the Main Panel Leads and through meeting minutes, and will receive reports/minutes and recommendations from UoA Planning Groups and other groups as necessary.

Notes / version history

These terms of reference will be subject to further consultation and Equality Impact Assessment, and may be amended as REF preparations progress. This is Version 1; the group was established in AY 2024/25.

Terms of reference

REF Unit of Assessment (UOA) Planning Groups

The responsibilities of UOA Planning Groups include (but are not limited to):

• Developing the unit's REF strategy and action plan in consultation with the School Associate Dean for Research and Main Panel Leads, and implementing it as approved by REF SSG
• Keeping abreast of announcements on reforms to the REF that will inform preparations at UOA level
• Developing a communication plan to keep staff up to date on planned REF activities and deadlines
• Developing a timetable for key submission development milestones, consistent with the REF SSG timetable
• Overseeing the preparation of the unit's submission to the Mock REF and other ongoing review processes
• Identifying and communicating boundary issues with other UOAs
• Preparing draft submissions for review, feedback and approval by the relevant Main Panel Group and the REF Operational Group, including recommending:
  • The outputs to be returned, based on academic judgement of quality against the REF criteria and level definitions
  • The impact case studies to be returned, based on academic judgement of the eligibility of the underpinning research and the REF criteria for impact
  • The content of the people, culture and environment element, based on REF guidance
• Ensuring that the development of the submission is performed in accordance with the University's Code of Practice

Membership

UOA Planning Groups will consist of three members of academic staff with significant responsibility for research and experience of research assessment or other relevant expertise. One member acts as overall UOA Lead (Chair). It is recommended that UoAs also nominate a UOA Engagement & Impact Lead and a UOA People, Culture & Environment Lead, where capacity, resource and size allow. UoAs can decide what works best. Members of UOA Planning Groups cannot be appointed to Main Panel Lead roles.

Meeting frequency and administrative support

UOA Planning Groups will meet a minimum of four times per year (more often when required). Each Group should have named administrative support provided by the School; workload implications for that support must be considered.

Training

All members must have completed the University's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and Information Security Awareness training prior to serving on the Group. Members may be required to undertake additional training as the submission develops.

Reporting

UoA Planning Groups will report on activity/recommendations to the relevant Main Panel Group via the UOA Leads and through meeting minutes, and will provide data, information and reports to the REF Operational Group as required.

Notes / version history

The overall UOA Lead and the UOA Engagement & Impact Lead will be appointed initially; the UOA People, Culture & Environment Lead in due course. These terms of reference will be subject to further consultation and Equality Impact Assessment, and may be amended as REF preparations progress. This is Version 1; the group was established in AY 2024/25.

↑ Back to top

Appendix 4

Appeals Group Remit and Membership

Terms of reference and membership

REF Strategy and Steering Group — Code of Practice Appeals Group

The REF Strategy and Steering Group (REF SSG) is responsible for developing the Code of Practice (CoP) for REF 2029. It will have oversight and authority to form recommendations on the submission, including research independence status of 'research only' contracts, provided to UEG for final approval. An Appeals Panel will be established only when an appeal has been received by [email protected]. Staff making an appeal must do so in writing and using the template provided (below), clearly stating the grounds for appeal with reference to the criteria and evidence set out in Section 3.1 of the Code of Practice. There is a 300-word limit. Appeals Panel decisions signed off by UEG will be final; any subsequent appeal received about the same issue will not be considered.

Responsibilities

• Thorough knowledge of the Code of Practice, its appendices and related Equality Impact Assessments
• Reading the appeal template prior to the panel sitting to discuss the appeal
• Attending the appeal panel, discussing the appeal and agreeing an outcome with other panel members
• Communicating the outcome of the appeal with RIS, who will follow up with the person making the appeal, their Faculty and UoA REF Leads

Membership

• Vice Principal Research and Innovation (Convener)
• Director of Research and Innovation Services, RIS
• Relevant Main Panel Lead/s
• Deputy Director (EDI) People

The Appeal Group may also invite additional members of staff to meetings to inform discussions which would benefit from their expertise.

Meeting frequency and administrative support

The Appeal Panel will meet once annually in May of each academic year, if an appeal is received, and will be supported by the University Research Excellence, Policy and Governance team in RIS.

Training

All members of the Appeal Panel must complete the University's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and Information Security Awareness training prior to serving on the Group. Members will also be required to complete REF specific EDI training once it has been developed and prior to final submission decision making.

Reporting

The REF SSG Appeal Panel will report to the University Executive Group (UEG) for official sign off for decisions and the University Research Committee (URC) for information only. The Appeal Panel will receive recommendations from the REF Operational Group, Main Panel Groups and UoA Planning Groups and other groups as necessary.

Notes / version history

These terms of reference and the membership list will be subject to annual review as part of the EIA for the REF 2029 Code of Practice and may be amended as REF preparations progress. This is Version 1 of the Appeals Group Terms of Reference and membership document for REF 2029, written to be included in the Code of Practice appendices.

Appeals template

REF 2029 Appeals Template:

1. Staff wishing to make an appeal against decisions of their research independence status must use the form below and forward it to [email protected].
2. The university central REF team will acknowledge receipt of the appeal and provide a timeframe for review and final decision.
3. Any information not requested, or information beyond the 300-word limit, will not be considered by the Appeals Group.
4. Staff cannot make an appeal on behalf of someone else.

Download the REF 2029 Appeals Template

 

↑ Back to top

Appendix 5

Code of Practice Change Log

Updated on	Paragraph number	Original content	Updated content
09/07/2026	Appendix 1, p.29	Included named individual for Lead person and Authorising sign-off	Removed names to leave role only

↑ Back to top