Policy for open access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework (Updated July 2015)
1. This document sets out the details of a requirement that certain research outputs
should be made open-access to be eligible for submission to the next Research
Excellence Framework (REF). This requirement will apply to journal articles and
conference proceedings accepted for publication after 1 April 2016.
2. The policy states that, to be eligible for submission to the post-2014 REF, authors’
outputs must have been deposited in an institutional or subject repository. Deposited
material should be discoverable, and free to read and download, for anyone with an
internet connection. The requirement applies only to journal articles and conference
proceedings with an International Standard Serial Number. It will not apply to
monographs, book chapters, other long-form publications, working papers, creative or
practice-based research outputs, or data. The policy applies to research outputs
accepted for publication after 1 April 2016, but we would strongly urge institutions to
implement it now.
3. The policy allows repositories to respect embargo periods set by publications.
Where a publication specifies an embargo period, authors can comply with the policy by
making a ‘closed’ deposit. Closed deposits must be discoverable to anyone with an
Internet connection before the full text becomes available for read and download (which
will occur after the embargo period has elapsed). If still under embargo at the submission
date of the next REF, closed deposits will be admissible to the REF.
4. There are a number of exceptions to the various requirements that will be allowed
by the policy. These exceptions cover circumstances where deposit was not possible, or
where open access to deposited material could not be achieved within the policy 2
requirements. These exceptions will allow institutions to achieve near-total compliance,
but the post-2014 REF will also include a mechanism for considering any other
exceptional cases where an output could not otherwise meet the requirements.
5. Higher education institutions are now advised to implement processes and
procedures to comply with this policy, which may include using a combination of the
‘green’ and ‘gold’ routes to open access. Institutions can achieve full compliance without
incurring any additional publication costs through article processing charges. 3
This document was updated in July 2015 to include a number of amendments to
the policy, following constructive feedback from the sector, as set out in a circular
letter to HEIs in July 2015 at www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2015/CL,202015/.
6. The four UK higher education funding bodies believe that research arising from our
funding should be as widely and freely accessible as the available channels for
dissemination allow. Open access to research enables the prompt and widespread
dissemination of research findings. It benefits the efficiency of the research process and
allows publicly funded research to drive economic growth. It delivers social benefits
through increased public understanding of research.
7. This document sets out the details of an open access policy relating to the
successor to the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF). We formulated this policy
following an extensive period of consultation with the higher education sector and other
stakeholders during 2013. In February 2013, we wrote to all higher education institutions
to ask for advice on how we might implement an open access requirement in the post-
2014 REF1. Following advice received in reply to that letter, the four UK higher education
funding bodies formally consulted on an updated set of policy proposals in July 2013.
The outcomes of the formal consultation and a summary of responses can be found
respectively at Annexes B and C, published at the following link:
www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/201407/.
8. This policy makes a number of assumptions about aspects of the next REF that
have not yet been formally decided. This has been necessary to provide due notice to the
sector of the policy requirement. The main assumption is that there will be a post-2014
REF that operates on substantially the same basis as the 2014 REF. For example, we
assume that there will be four main panels with disciplinary remits broadly similar to
those of the REF 2014 main panels.
9. To fulfil our aim of increasing substantially the proportion of research that is made
available by open access in the UK, the four UK higher education funding bodies are
introducing a requirement that outputs submitted to the post-2014 REF be made
available in an open-access form. This policy document sets out the details of this
requirement.
10. The requirement will apply at the level of the individual research output. Set out
below are the definition of the outputs within the scope of this policy, the criteria that
these outputs must fulfil to be considered open-access, and a list of exceptions to the
requirements.
11. The requirement to comply with the open access policy applies only to particular
outputs, as defined below.
a. The type of output is a journal article or the type of output is a conference
proceeding with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN).
b. The output is accepted for publication after 1 April 2016.
Any output that fits both aspects of this definition will need to meet the open access
criteria outlined in paragraphs 16 to 36, unless an exception applies.
12. Conference proceedings published with an International Standard Book Number
(ISBN) or as part of a book series with an ISSN do not meet this definition.
13. The criteria will apply to outputs that are accepted for publication after 1 April 2016.
We strongly encourage institutions to work towards full compliance by the start date.
14. Outputs that sit outside the above definition will still be eligible for submission to
the post-2014 REF without needing to meet the open access criteria. Specifically, this
policy does not apply to monographs and other long-form publications, or to non-text
outputs, or to the data which underpin some research. Further, this policy does not apply
to those particular output types that are delivered confidentially for security or commercial
reasons.
15. Where a higher education institution (HEI) can demonstrate that it has taken steps
towards enabling open access for outputs outside the scope of this definition, credit will
be given in the research environment component of the post-2014 REF. It is reasonable
for institutions to take a proportionate view of the costs and benefits of making other
types of outputs (including monographs) available as open access.
16. Outputs that meet the definition at paragraphs 11 to 13, and thus fall within the
scope of this policy, must fulfil all of the following criteria to be treated as open-access,
except where there is an allowable exception. The criteria consist of deposit
requirements, discovery requirements and access requirements.
17. The output must have been deposited in an institutional repository, a repository
service shared between multiple institutions, or a subject repository.
18. The output must have been deposited as soon after the point of acceptance as
possible, and no later than three months after this date (as given in the acceptance letter
or e-mail from the publication to the author).
19. To take account of the need for systems to be developed to support deposit-onacceptance,
during the first two years of the policy (1 April 2016 – 1 April 2018), outputs can
be deposited up to three months after the date of publication.
20. The output must have been deposited as the author’s accepted and final peerreviewed
text (which may otherwise be known as the ‘author manuscript’ or ‘final author
version’ or ‘post-print’), though this may be replaced or augmented with an updated peerreviewed
manuscript or the final published version of record at a later date.
21. Outputs that are published by a journal or conference that does not require peer
review are within the scope of this policy; in this instance, we would require the author’s
final accepted version.
22. Outputs that have been provisionally accepted for publication, under the condition
that the author makes revisions to the manuscript that result from peer review, are not
considered as the final text.
23. The output must be presented in a way that allows it to be discovered by readers
and by automated tools such as search engines.
24. The discovery requirements should typically be fulfilled through the storage and
open presentation of a bibliographic or metadata record in the repository.
25. Once discoverable, the output should remain so.
26. Where a deposited output is later replaced or augmented with an updated peerreviewed
manuscript or the version of record, this must also meet the discovery
requirements.
27. The output must be presented in a form that allows anyone with internet access to
search electronically within the text, read it and download it without charge, while
respecting any constraints on timing (as detailed in paragraphs 29 to 35). While we do
not request that outputs are made available under any particular licence, we advise that
outputs licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Non-Derivative
(CC BY-NC-ND) licence would meet this requirement.
28. Once accessible, the output should remain so.
29. The required timing of compliance with the access requirements depends on
whether an embargo is specified. Two routes are given below.
Route 1: For outputs deposited with no embargo
30. The output must meet the access requirements as soon as possible and no later
than one month after deposit.
Route 2: For outputs deposited under embargo
31. The output must meet the access requirements as soon as possible and no later
than one month after the end of the embargo period. The embargo period typically begins
at the point of first publication (including online publication).
32. Embargo periods should not exceed the following maxima:
- 12 months for REF Main Panel A and REF Main Panel B
- 24 months for REF Main Panel C and REF Main Panel D
33. Outputs deposited under embargo must fulfil all of the deposit and discovery
requirements above.
34. Outputs still under embargo will be admissible to the post-2014 REF, provided that
the date of their first publication is within the REF publication period.
35. Where a deposited output is later replaced or augmented with an updated peerreviewed
manuscript or the version of record, this must also meet the access
requirements. Embargo periods may not re-start with subsequent deposits: they are
always linked to the date of first publication.
36. Outputs do not need to allow automated tools to perform in-text search and
download (those activities commonly known as text-mining) to meet the access
requirement. However, where an HEI can demonstrate that outputs are presented in a
form that allows re-use of the work, including via text-mining, credit will be given in the
research environment component of the post-2014 REF. We further recommend that
institutions fully consider the extent to which they currently retain or transfer the copyright
of works published by their researchers, as part of creating a healthy research
environment. For further information on text-mining, see Annex A.
37. All outputs that meet the definition in paragraphs 11 to 13 must fulfil the open
access criteria in paragraphs 16 to 36, except where the following exceptions apply.
Where one of the following exceptions applies to an output, this exception should be
indicated in the submission to the REF.
38. The following exceptions deal with cases where the output is unable to meet the
deposit requirements, or where the output is being made open access via another route.
In the following cases, the output will not be required to meet any of the open access
criteria, and should be considered beyond the scope of this policy, though we recognise
that in some cases open access to the output may be achievable at a later date or by
another route.
a. The individual whose output is being submitted to the REF was unable to
secure the use of a repository at the point of acceptance.
b. The individual whose output is being submitted to the REF experienced a
delay in securing the final peer-reviewed text (for instance, where a paper has
multiple authors).
c. The individual whose output is being submitted to the REF was not employed
by a UK HEI at the time of submission for publication.
d. It would be unlawful to deposit, or request the deposit of, the output.
e. Depositing the output would present a security risk.
f. The output was published as ‘gold’ open access (for example, RCUK-funded
projects where an open access article processing charge has been paid).
39. The following exceptions deal with cases where deposit of the output is possible,
but there are issues to do with meeting the access requirements. In the following cases,
the output will still be required to meet the deposit and discovery requirements, but not
the access requirements. A closed-access deposit will be required, and the open access
requirements should be met as soon as possible.
a. The output depends on the reproduction of third party content for which open
access rights could not be granted (either within the specified timescales, or at all).
b. The publication concerned requires an embargo period that exceeds the
stated maxima, and was the most appropriate publication for the output.
c. The publication concerned actively disallows open-access deposit in a
repository, and was the most appropriate publication for the output.
40. The following exceptions deal with cases where an output is unable to meet the
criteria due to a technical issue. In the following cases, the output will not be required to
meet the open access criteria. We would strongly urge HEIs to ensure the criteria are
met retroactively, as soon as possible and no later than the REF submission point.
a. At the point of acceptance, the individual whose output is being submitted to
the REF was at a different UK HEI which failed to comply with the criteria.
b. The repository experienced a short-term or transient technical failure that
prevented compliance with the criteria (this should not apply to systemic issues).
c. An external service provider failure prevented compliance (for instance, a
subject repository did not enable open access at the end of the embargo period, or
a subject repository ceased to operate).
41. In very exceptional cases, it may not be possible for an output to meet the open
access requirements set out by this policy for a reason not covered by the exceptions
listed above. We will require a short written explanation for why the output could not meet
the open access requirements at the point of submission to the REF. We expect that
such cases should be extremely rare. We will establish the process for considering them
as part of our more detailed work to develop the post-2014 REF.
42. Evidence for outputs meeting the criteria, the definition, or any of the allowed
exceptions will not be required to be submitted to the post-2014 REF.
43. We will establish the detailed verification and audit process as part of the
implementation of the next REF, but we initially intend that compliance will be measured
by verifying the data provided in the REF submission. Any audit will require institutions to
provide assurance about their processes and systems for recording open-access
information, as well as taking a light-touch approach to verifying supporting information.
Further details of the information and audit requirements are given on our web-site.
44. Any output submitted to the next REF that falls within the scope of this policy but
does not meet its requirements or exceptions will be treated as non-compliant. Noncompliant
outputs will be given an unclassified score and will not be assessed in the
REF. However, we will be tolerant of occasional failures where institutions have made
best endeavours towards achieving full compliance. Audits by the REF will allow for
legitimate human error or oversight, and will take account of how the varied mix of
disciplines across institutions can affect progress. The number of exceptions claimed
within a submission will not affect the REF results.
45. When a researcher moves between two HEIs, it will be acceptable for their
deposited outputs to move to the new institution’s repository, as long as there is no
interruption to discovery or access during the transition. We recognise that the use of
unique researcher identifiers, such as Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID),
can facilitate this process.
46. We will not require the submitting institution to seek and retain evidence of the
previous HEI’s compliance with the deposit requirements, but it is our aim that the
submitting institution provides information on accessibility levels for these outputs where
information is readily available. Further information about this will follow in due course.
47. Institutions’ research information management systems that can support the open
access requirements through repository-like functionality can be thought of as
institutional repositories for the purposes of this policy.
48. We recognise that information on deposit permissions, licences and embargoes
can sometimes be unclear, complex, or hard to find. Until significant progress has been
made to address this issue (including developing machine-readable licences and
permissions), it is reasonable for the sector to rely on shared services, including those
offered by SHERPA. Authors and institutions should feel comfortable acting on the
information provided by SHERPA in meeting our open access requirements, and should
not undertake additional work to verify this information.
49. Frequently asked questions (FAQ) on the HEFCE web-site have been updated to
reflect the adjusted policy and can be accessed at www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/faqs
50. For further information, please contact Ben Johnson (tel 0117 931 7038) or
openaccess@hefce.ac.uk