Back in March the four UK higher education bodies announced a consultation on the open access requirements for REF 2029.

Open access is what it sounds like. The availability of research outputs made available to all in some form. Open access can be “golden” this is where it is made freely available for anyone to read. And there is “green” open access wherein academics deposit a version of their output in an open access repository. Crucially, open access is not a synonym for free access. There is generally an Article Publication Charge (APC) which is leveraged on institutions, learned societies, somewhere else, or a combination of people and institutions.

The argument in favour of open access is that knowledge which improves humanity, which is in some way or other paid for by taxpayers, should be made available to as many people as possible. REF 2021 made clear that open access was preferable in most circumstances bar a few software, paywall, and publishing limitations.

In their March consultation the research councils proposed expanding open access even further. Most controversial was the expectation that longform outputs would be made available shortly after publication.

The obvious challenge here is the cost of making books open access within two years particularly if they are selling well. The other issue is the expense in making an entire book open access and who would bear that cost. There is a mooted exemption “where the only appropriate publisher, after liaison and consideration, is unable to offer an access option that complies with REF policy,” but how this would be assessed consistently is up for debate.

Put simply, where there is a market for a research output plainly making it available open access distorts, destroys, or otherwise runs into all kinds of market problems with copyright, publication rights, income, intellectual property, time, and so on. This isn’t to say the trade off for wider access isn’t worth this level of trouble.

The REF Steering Group has now decided that:

Open access for longform outputs remains a key area of policy interest for the funding bodies but in response to sector concerns, and in recognition of the broad set of challenges currently facing the sector, there will be no longform open access mandate for REF 2029. An open access requirement for submission of longform outputs will be in place for the next assessment exercise, with implementation from 1 January 2029.

Essentially, the policy direction that there will be an open access mandate for longform publications however this mandate will not be in place for REF 2029, instead kicking in afterwards. It is fundamentally a bit odd to make decisions about the next-but-one REF before the coming REF has taken place, and without consultation. Putting the decision back also won’t make the eventual implementation any easier.

The more cynical view of this is that it is kicking the can down the road for a decision which seems eventually inevitable. The less cynical view is that the research councils have again demonstrated that they are willing to listen to the sector, change direction, and respond to what is a challenging time for the sector by holding back on additional cost and administration.

Elsewhere, we are promised a decision on final open access policy for articles and conferences proceedings by autumn or winter. In the meantime, the REF 2021 Open Access Policy submission requirements will continue to apply. The implementation date for any revised policy will be no earlier than 1 January 2026.

As the REF comes closer a clear pattern is starting to emerge. The research councils set out a version of the world based on feedback and previous exercises, the sector agrees with parts disagrees with others and does a bit of “this but not like this,” and then the research councils respond with a way forward.

The issue will be that there are still fundamental challenges on research, culture, and environment particularly on the weighting and criteria on culture, which no amount of consultation can resolve. It will take significant political acumen, carefully mediated solution, and a degree of bravery if the funding councils choose to stick to the current course. Of course, while all of these decisions are waiting to be made the REF edges closer leaving less time for implementation and questions on why some of this couldn’t have been done earlier.