LJMU research-only contracts and REF 2029

The university will assess research-only contracts (also known as ‘academic employment function = 2’ or ‘acempfun=2’ contracts) for inclusion in the Research Excellence Framework 2029 volume measure. This page provides information on the assessment process and implications.

Here, you can also find information on how to appeal decisions related to research independence, including an example of an appeal submission, which has been prepared by staff in Research and Innovation Services and the Diversity and Inclusion team.

These processes are established by LJMU’s Code of Practice, which is a binding document that governs the university’s decision-making about the REF 2029 volume measure and research output submission.

What are ‘research-only’ contracts?

These are contracts of employment which state that the primary academic employment function is research only, even though the contract may include a limited number of hours for teaching (up to 6 hours per week or pro rata for part-time staff).

Discover more about the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) guidance

What is ‘research independence’?

A ‘research only’ contract is considered to demonstrate research independence if the staff member undertakes self-directed research, rather than primarily carrying out another individual’s research programme.

Discover more about REF guidance

What is the ‘volume measure’ and what are its implications?

The volume measure is a calculation of a REF Unit of Assessment’s research capacity, expressed in Full-Time Equivalent (FTE).  It represents eligible ‘teaching and research’ and ‘research-only’ contracts, assessed for academic years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027.

Research-only contracts that are determined to be research independent for one or both academic years will contribute to LJMU’s volume measure in their appropriate Unit of Assessment.

Inclusion of a contract in the volume measure does not imply a judgement of the jobholder’s performance. LJMU is required to make decisions based on job expectations, not job performance. LJMU’s Code of Practice confirms the university does not view the REF exercise as an appropriate way to assess individual performance.

How LJMU makes decisions about research independence.

As described in LJMU’s Code of Practice, decisions are made based on six criteria, which are assessed by the Director of School and Unit of Assessment Co-ordinator/s against a School staff list provided by LJMU Human Resources.

The criteria reflect the criteria for determining research independence as expressed in the REF 2029 Volume Measure guidance section 9.2.1. They relate to the nature of research activity performed in the execution of the contract.

A positive response to any criterion below indicates research independence for the purposes of the REF 2029 exercise.

  • Holding a job description that explicitly specifies research independence as an expectation of the contract.
  • Acting as a lead applicant on an externally funded research project.
  • Holding an independently won, competitively awarded fellowship that requires research independence as a condition of funding, as identified by the list of eligible research fellowships provided at REF 2029.
  • Leading a substantial or specialised work package within an externally funded project.
  • Being named as a co-applicant on an externally funded research award and having demonstrable significant input into the design, conduct, and interpretation of the research (for the University’s Units of Assessment in Main Panels C and D only).
  • Leading a research group that is a recognised and scheduled entity by the relevant LJMU FRKEC.

How to appeal decisions related to research independence

Research-only staff may appeal a decision about their contractual research independence. The appeal mechanism is described in the Code of Practice. Appeals are submitted via a confidential email process.

Staff can appeal on the grounds that the due process set out in the Code of Practice has not been followed correctly, or on the grounds of a defect in the evidence used to consider whether the independence criteria were met.

Staff can also appeal on the grounds that expectations for the job role have changed through promotion, progression, researching opportunities or change of contract that substantively alters the nature of the research responsibilities.

In these specialist cases, the appeals panel will request the role holder provides written evidence of the role change to accompany the submission of their appeal. Indicatively, this evidence might be a formal letter from LJMU Human Resources confirming the promotion, an email from a Director of School or project Principal Investigator confirming a new duty, or a signed contract of employment with LJMU.

Upon receipt of the appeal submission and evidence in these situations, the appeals panel will use the six criteria to assess the research independence of the newly changed role.

Where the role is considered to have research independence based on the application of the criteria, the independence will be dated to when the role began to undertake the new duties associated with the change.

Timelines

For all appeals, the appellant must send notice of their intention to appeal within ten working days of receiving the URKEC decision by email (twenty working days for staff on parental or health-related leave). Appeals are sent to AppealsREF2029@ljmu.ac.uk.

If it is not already included in the initial notice email, the appeal must then be made in writing and submitted to the appeals panel by email within twenty-five working days of the staff member receiving the initial URKEC decision by email (thirty working days for staff on parental or health-related leave).

The Head of Research Excellence and Research Strategy will monitor this inbox and communicate the intentions and appeals received as soon as possible to the Appeals Panel.

Written Appeal

The appeal submission will be expected to include evidence that either due process was not correctly followed or evidence that the staff member’s job role includes research independence as defined by the decision-making criteria in this Code of Practice.

The evidence will need to be supplied electronically and sent by email. The submission will be expected to also include a written statement of no more than 500 words outlining why the staff member considers their job role meets the criteria for research independence.

The staff member may supply the statement in an alternative format where appropriate for accessibility reasons (for instance, a recorded oral statement).

Panel Procedure

The appeal will be heard by the University’s Academic Lead for the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, the Deputy Director of Human Resources, and the opposite Faculty’s Associate Dean for Research and Knowledge Exchange.

These staff are collectively referred to as an Appeals Panel. The Appeals Panel is therefore independent of the initial decision-making process described above. The Appeals Panel members will complete REF-specific EDI training provided by the University’s Diversity and Inclusion team.

The Associate Dean for Research and Knowledge Exchange will be the Appeals Panel chair.

The Appeals Panel will meet to discuss and confirm its decision. The meeting will be recorded in minutes by the Head of Research Excellence and Research Strategy, who will act as secretariat for the meeting.

Following the meeting, the Appeals Panel will convene to produce a written decision, which shall be communicated to the staff member by email as soon as possible. The written document can be replicated and provided in an alternative format for accessibility reasons if requested (for instance, on a high-contrast coloured background).

The written decision will be the outcome of the appeal process for that year. The outcome is final. The staff member will be offered the chance to meet with a member of the Appeals Panel for additional feedback and support, accompanied by a support person if they wish.

Example appeal submission

When I received the notification that my research-only contract was designated as not having an expectation of research independence. I am writing to appeal this decision based on fact. The decision-making process did not take account of information that it reasonably could have been expected to.

The process uses six criteria, and my contract only needed a positive response against one criterion to be designated as independent.

My appeal is focused on criterion number four as provided in the University’s REF 2029 Code of Practice. I am ‘employed to lead a substantial or specialised work package within an externally funded project.’ This appeal submission includes evidence and dates to support my claim.

I am employed to lead Work Package three, ‘Technical Feasibility Study’, in the EPSRC-funded ‘Telescopic Windmills’ project, which is a consortium based at Liverpool John Moores University with the Principal Investigator Dr A. Smith. The project was awarded funding for the period 2019-2020 to 2027-2028, and I was appointed to my job in 2023-2024 on 13 April 2024. I have been in post ever since.

I have attached records of my appraisals from ACTUS which refer to the expectation that I lead the Work Package. The Code of Practice states that my annual objectives as recorded in the ACTUS appraisal system are seen as a key evidence type for an appeal based on criterion four. These objectives are set between my line manager and me.

Should the appeals panel require any further information, the original application and award letter will confirm the work packages within the project and that the work is externally funded. University Human Resources records will provide evidence of my dates of employment.

I understand I will receive a written decision from the appeals panel. I also understand I can meet with an appeals panel member to discuss the outcome of my appeal, whether it is a decision of research independence or not, with a support person if I choose.

A Staff Member

Explanation of the example appeal submission

The example has the following features:

  • Under the 500-word maximum limit.
  • Identifies whether it is an appeal based on fact, on process, on role change, or on multiple factors.
  • Include dates and evidence of its claims.
  • Is set against the six criteria (it only needs to be set against one of the criteria, but it can be set against as many as the appellant believes are relevant).