Nominating Your Publications as Possible REF Submissions
The aim of the Faculty’s REF Outputs Review panel is to identify publications which the REF2029 Law sub-panel is likely to recognise as primary or important points of reference in the field, rated as 4* (world-leading) or 3* (internationally excellent) in terms of originality, significance, and rigour of research.
For that purpose, the panel is seeking updated nominations from our authors and editors of REF-eligible publications regarding which of their own eligible outputs they believe are likely to meet these criteria—this may include publications which they have already nominated.
Scroll down for more information on the nomination process itself.
Background
In REF2021, Oxford’s submission to the Outputs element of the assessment (which accounted for 60% of the overall REF outcome) consisted of 345 publications.
In REF2029, as part of the new Contribution to Knowledge and Understanding element of the assessment (which will account for 50% of the overall REF outcome) we will again need to submit research outputs which will be read and graded by the Law sub-panel for their originality, significance, and rigour. It is likely that we will need to submit a similar number of publications.
The aim of the Faculty’s REF Outputs Review panel is to choose which publications to submit, by replicating as closely as possible the grading process which the REF2029 Law sub-panel will undertake. The Panel completed a calibration process in 2024 and is supported by two external members, each of whom assessed outputs in REF2021: Prof Fiona de Londras and Prof Lucy Vickers.
Output Eligibility Criteria for REF2029
An output will be eligible to feature in our REF2029 submission if it meets all of the following criteria:
- It is published between 1 Jan 2021 and 30 November 2028;
- It is recorded on Symplectic Elements;
- It meets the REF Open Access requirements: for journal articles, this means it must be Gold Open Access or have been deposited in a suitable repository (such as ORA, which can be accessed via Symplectic) within three months of acceptance;
- There is a substantial link between the author/co-author and the University of Oxford
Unlike in REF2021, there will be no minimum or maximum number of submitted outputs per individual: in fact, it is publications that are submitted, not individuals. The details of the ‘substantial link’ requirement have not been finalised – so if, for example, you published a piece in 2021, and joined Oxford in 2022, it may well be that the piece will not be eligible for REF2029. If so, this will be another change from the REF2021 model, when outputs were ‘portable’.
Add Your Publications to Symplectic Elements
Any published outputs which you would like to nominate should be entered on Symplectic Elements (see Adding Items to Symplectic).
Please contact lawsymp@law.ox.ac.uk if you would like any assistance.
The Nomination Process
Since 2024 we have been emailing REF-eligible academics in the Faculty at periodic intervals to request their nominations up to five of their own publications for consideration for submission in REF2029. (This list can include publications which have previously been nominated as well as new nominations.)
You should only nominate a publication if a) it meets all of the eligibility criteria above, and b) you believe it will be rated as at least 3* by the REF2029 Law sub-panel. For guidance on the criteria for 3* and 4* publications, please see the Expanded Criteria Guide. (As noted above, there is no minimum requirement of submitted outputs for any individual person: if you do not have, or expect to have, any publications which you feel meet this criteria, that is fine—please just indicate this on the nomination form.)
You will be asked to rank your nominated outputs, with the strongest (i.e. the one you think is most likely to be rated as 4* by the REF2029 Law sub-panel) as Nomination 1, the next as Nomination 2, etc.
If you think you have more than 5 outputs which meet all of the eligibility criteria above, and that you believe will be rated as at least 3* by the REF2029 Law sub-panel, please pick the 5 of those pieces which you think are most likely to be rated as 4* by the REF2029 Law sub-panel, using the Expanded Criteria Guide to inform your choice.
Some further details on REF suitability are given below:
The REF policy on outputs published before employment at the submitting institution was clarified in Summer 2025.
Short-Form Outputs (e.g. journal articles, chapters): If the short-form output was published before you joined Oxford, it is not eligible for submission by the University of Oxford and should not be nominated. (Such publications may still be eligible for submission under the institution at which you were previously employed).
Long-Form Outputs (e.g. monographs): A long-form output published before you joined Oxford may be eligible. The exact criteria for this are still being finalised. Please continue to nominate such publications, but also indicate on the nomination form if they were published while you were at another institution.
Publications based on research undertaken at another institution but published on or after your start date at Oxford are eligible for submission by Oxford.
Publications by doctoral students are not eligible for REF submission.
You can nominate up to three future outputs: outputs which have not yet been published but which you are confident will be published before 30 November 2028.
If the future output is already in its final form, this can be noted on the form. But even if the final version is someway off, if the piece will meet all of the eligibility criteria above and you believe it will be rated as at least 3* by the REF2029 Law sub-panel, please do include it in your nominations, as it is very useful for us to know what will be available within the REF2029 period.
If an output has a substantial overlap with another piece you have previously published, please do not include it in your nominations. Such overlap markedly reduces the originality and significance of a publication. This does not mean of course that an output with such overlap is not worthwhile: it may be useful, for example, to have a chapter in an edited collection which draws wider attention to your previously published monograph. Nonetheless, the chapter is not suitable for REF submission as its originality and significance is reduced by the fact that the key ideas had already been set out.
Equally, if you have a publication which sketches out some ideas, or makes an initial contribution, but you plan to develop those ideas and contribution much more fully in a later publication before 30 November 2028, please do not include that first publication. It would not make sense for our REF2029 submission to include both publications, and the later publication will be the more significant and rigorous.
The place or manner of a publication (e.g. journal article or chapter in edited book) is not determinative: everything depends on the quality of the output itself. Books aimed at students or a wider audience may be suitable: the crucial question is whether the output makes a contribution which advances prior academic understanding of a topic. Textbooks and new editions of existing books are therefore unlikely to be rated as 3* or higher by the REF2029 sub-panel. A publication that presents existing academic thinking in a user-friendly way to students or a wider audience is similarly not suitable for submission as an individual output, although it may be very helpful in our overall Impact and Engagement statement.
Co-Authored Publications: Co-authored publications are suitable for REF submission. The publication will be assessed on its own merits, without reference to individual contributions.
Edited Collections **Updated Advice** : If you have edited or co-edited a collection, it is possible to nominate the collection as a single output, which will then be assessed both for the editorial contribution and for any chapter in the book you have written or co-written.
It is possible in theory for this editorial contribution, in combination with the editor’s contribution as an author, to assist the output in meeting the criteria for a 4* output. However, it is likely that this will only be the case where there is
- a very clear research statement;
- a very strong introduction setting out the contribution of the editorial work to the originality, significance and rigour of the collection; and
- high levels of originality, significance and rigour in the editor’s contribution as an author of a chapter.
This may be possible, for example, where the editorial contribution consists of formulating a particular design for a collaborative project, or of bringing together ideas in a new way to have a formative influence on the intellectual agenda, or of generating an exceptionally significant research resource. Equally, there will be many cases where the editorial contribution, whilst valuable in providing important knowledge by presenting a set of individually helpful contributions, does not have such effects, and so is unlikely to be seen as sufficient to justify assessing the book as a whole as higher than 2*.
If you do wish to nominate an edited collection as a whole, rather than a single chapter, please provide a short statement on the nomination form (no more than a paragraph, setting out the originality, significance, and rigour of your editorial contribution to the book.
(Even if you are not planning to nominate the whole of an edited collection, please do still add it to Symplectic Elements, as It will be important for us to know about such collections when writing those parts of the REF 2029 submission focussing on People, Culture, and Environment: bringing people together to produce such collections is one important way in which we help to maintain a vibrant research community in Oxford and beyond!)
Outputs can be double-weighted (i.e. count as two outputs) where the scale of academic investment in the research activity and/or the intellectual scope of the research output are considerable enough for the output to count as two outputs.
If you think an output you are nominating meets this criterion, please do indicate that on the nomination form. Monographs are one example where double-weighting is often justified, but they are not the only example (e.g. an output resulting from a long-term process of evidence collection may also meet the criterion).