All outputs which fall in scope of the REF 2029 Open Access policy are expected to meet the requirements of the policy if they are to be eligible for submission to the REF. Each submission:
[PARA 5.6.2 and 7.8.3] "may submit a maximum of five (5) per cent non-compliant in-scope outputs, or one non-compliant in-scope output, whichever is higher."
Outputs submitted above this tolerance limit will be:
"removed as ineligible. An unclassified score will be added for the removed (‘missing’) outputs. Where an audit process demonstrates that outputs identified as compliant do not meet the open access requirements and exceed the tolerated proportion/number, these outputs will be removed, and an unclassified score added for the ‘missing’ outputs."
Where an author wishes to submit a publication for the REF which:
... the policy allows for a number of exceptions to the various requirements that will be allowed.
These exceptions cover circumstances where deposit was not possible, or where open access to deposited material could not be achieved within the policy requirements.
Below we have listed the exceptions allowed for by the REF 2029 Open Access policy, how we expect these to be evidenced through any audit process, and actions expected of authors and REF leads.
You can suggest an exception by contacting dro.admin@durham.ac.uk.
The authorisation process is as follows:
The following exceptions deal with cases where the output is unable to meet the deposit requirements. Where one of these exceptions applies, the output will not be required to meet any of the open access criteria, and will be considered beyond the scope of this policy. However, Durham authors are expected to ensure their article is made open access wherever possible, in line with the university’s open access policy.
Please note, these exceptions only apply to outputs published on or before 31 December 2025. For outputs published after this date, please see the relevant tab on this guide.
| Exception | Evidence Expected | Example supporting text from author | Who is responsible for identifying | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1.2: At the point of acceptance, it was not possible to secure the use of a repository. (REF 2021: 252a) | Descriptive explanation of situation and difficulties encountered required, and where applicable data held as evidencing use of this exception must respect individual’s privacy. |
We cannot foresee circumstances in which a Durham author would apply this exception. See also exceptions 6.1.4 (not employed at a UK HEI at time of submission), 6.3.2 (not employed at Durham at time of acceptance) or 6.3.3 (technical failure prevented deposit) |
Durham author of output | |
| 6.1.3: There was a delay in securing the final peer-reviewed text (for instance, where a paper has multiple authors). (REF 2021: 252b) | Descriptive explanation of difficulties encountered required, and where applicable data held as evidencing use of this exception must respect individual’s privacy. |
The corresponding author of the article ([insert author name], [insert author ORCiD if known]) did not provide me with a copy of the accepted manuscript to deposit in DRO within the required deposit timeframe. [If applicable:] The corresponding author has ensured that this met the REF OA requirements and the output is available from repository [insert repository name], and was deposited there on [insert date]. |
Durham author of output | |
| 6.1.4: The staff member to whom the output is attributed was not employed on a volume contributing eligible contract by a UK HEI at the time of submission for publication. (REF 2021: 252c) |
Evidence of submission date if available (e.g. from publisher website). Evidence that author was not employed by submitting HEI at that point. |
This article was originally submitted to the journal on [insert date here]. I was not employed by Durham University at that time, and I confirm I was employed by [insert employer and country] at this time. | Durham author of output Employment dates at Durham are included within the Worktribe REF Module. |
|
| 6.1.5: It would be unlawful to deposit, or request the deposit of, the output. (REF 2021: 252d) |
Reasonable and descriptive explanation of difficulties encountered (where lawful to collect and record). Note, that this exception cannot be used where a journal’s open access policy prohibits the article form meeting the REF requirements, or where the inclusion of third party copyright prevents access to an output. These are covered by other exceptions. |
It would be unlawful to deposit this output because… [insert reasons here] NOTE: It is unlikely that this exception will apply to the vast majority of journal articles and conference papers, which will be published and in the public domain in any case. See also exceptions 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where the self-archiving permissions granted to an author by a journal do not meet the requirements of REF OA policy, but this was the most appropriate journal for the article to have been published in. |
Durham author of output & REF Admin for the submitting UoA | |
| 6.1.6: Depositing the output would present a security risk. (REF 2021: 252e) | Reasonable and descriptive explanation of difficulties encountered (where lawful to collect and record). |
Depositing this output would constitute a security risk because… [insert reasons here] NOTE: It is unlikely that this exception will apply to the vast majority of journal articles and conference papers. See also exceptions 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where the self-archiving permissions granted to an author by a journal do not meet the requirements of REF OA policy, but this was the most appropriate journal for the article to have been published in. |
Durham author of output & REF Team for the submitting UoA | |
|
6.4.2: The article was not deposited within 3 months of the date of acceptance, but was deposited in DRO within 3 months of the date of publication. In this instance, the outpt will be required to meet all other policy requirements. |
We would advise Durham authors to provide a short descriptive explanation as to any situation or difficulties encountered which account for the later deposit of the output. |
I was unable to deposit the accepted manuscript prior to the date of publication due to: (1) an agreed publicity embargo with the publisher. |
|
The following exceptions deal with cases where deposit of the output is possible, but there are issues to do with meeting the access requirements of the REF Open Access policy.
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, where possible.
Please note, these exceptions only apply to outputs published on or before 31 December 2025. For outputs published after this date, please see the relevant tab on this guide.
| Exception | Evidence Expected | Example supporting text from author | Who is responsible for identifying | |
| 6.2.2: 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). (REF2021: 253a) |
|
This output contains third party copyright material. Whilst permission was granted to include this within the published version of the article accessible by subscribers only, permission was not granted for deposit in an open access repository. The inclusion of this third party copyrighted material is fundamental to the understanding of the output, and so provision of access to the article as a whole has not been possible. |
Durham author of output Authors are advised to contact the DRO team if they believe this exception may apply. |
|
| 6.2.3: The publication concerned requires an embargo period that exceeds the stated maxima, and was the most appropriate publication for the output. (REF2021: 253b) |
Short explanation confirming that as the author, this journal was the most appropriate venue for publishing your research. Author’s are expected to be aware of the requirements of their funder’s and the REF Open Access policy, and to take these into account alongside other factors in deciding where is the most appropriate venue to publish their research. The choice of where to publish research outputs remains the choice of the author. Guidance on selecting a journal in your subject area, and information on the open access permissions individual journals might offer, can be sought from the library by contacting the open access team through our open access web pages. |
As the author, I was aware of the REF Open Access requirements, but confirm this was the most appropriate journal in which to publish this article. Other options which did meet the REF Open Access policy requirements were considered, but were deemed not to be the most appropriate venue to reach the most appropriate audience for this research. It would be worth outlining the reasons why the journal was selected.
|
Durham author of output Authors are advised to contact the DRO team if they are unsure if this exception may apply. |
|
| 6.2.4: The publication concerned actively disallows openaccess deposit in a repository, and was the most appropriate publication for the output. (REF2021: 253c) |
Short explanation confirming that as the author, this journal was the most appropriate venue for publishing your research. Author’s are expected to be aware of the requirements of their funder’s and the REF Open Access policy, and to take these into account alongside other factors in deciding where is the most appropriate venue to publish their research. The choice of where to publish research outputs remains the choice of the author. Guidance on selecting a journal in your subject area, and information on the open access permissions individual journals might offer, can be sought from the library by contacting the open access team through our open access web pages. |
As the author, I was aware of the REF Open Access requirements, but confirm this was the most appropriate journal in which to publish this article. Other options which did meet the REF Open Access policy requirements were considered, but were deemed not to be the most appropriate venue to reach the most appropriate audience for this research. It would be worth outlining the reasons why the journal was selected. |
Durham author of output Authors are advised to contact the DRO team if they are unsure if this exception may apply. |
The following exceptions deal with cases where an output is unable to meet the criteria due to a technical issue, or some other reasons which may be permitted for the REF. In the following cases, the output will not be required to meet the requirements of the REF Open Access policy.
Please note, these exceptions only apply to outputs published on or before 31 December 2025. For outputs published after this date, please see the relevant tab on this guide.
| Technical Exception | Evidence Expected | Example supporting text from author | Who is responsible for identifying |
| 6.3.2: At the point of acceptance, the staff member to whom the output is attributed was employed at a different UK HEI, and it has not been possible to determine compliance with the criteria. (REF2021: 254a) | Evidence that author was not employed by submitting HEI on the date of acceptance. | This article was originally accepted by the journal on [insert date here]. I was not employed by Durham University at that time. I was employed at [INSERT INSTITUTION NAME HERE] |
Durham author of output |
| 6.3.3: The repository experienced a short-term or transient technical failure that prevented compliance with the criteria (this should not apply to systemic issues). (REF2021: 254b) |
Reasonable and descriptive explanation of technical failure. |
N/A - If this exception is selected by an author, this will be confirmed against system logs to confirm it matches a period where access was lost for an extended period whihc prevented meeting the REF oa requirements.
|
Durham Library/CIS to evidence |
| 6.3.4: 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). (REF2021: 254c) |
Reasonable and descriptive explanation of external service failure. |
Please detail what the external service provider is, and why you believe they failed to meet the requirements. Please contact the library for advice if required. |
Durham author of output |
| Further and Additional Exceptions | Evidence Expected | Example supporting text from author | Who is responsible for identifying |
|
6.4.1: 'Other exception' should be used where an output is unable to meet the criteria due to circumstances beyond the control of the HEI, including extenuating personal circumstances of the author (such as periods of extended leave), industrial action, closure days, and software problems beyond those listed in the technical exceptions. If 'other' exception is selected, the outputs will not need to meet the open access criteria (deposit, discovery or access requirements). (REF2021: 255a) PLEASE NOTE: Use of this exception will increase the risk profile of the submission for audit purposes. |
A short written explanation for why the output could not meet the open access requirements at the point of submission to the REF | Please provide details to explain why this output did not meet the requirements. If these are related to any personal or private circumstances, please discuss with the REF Team for your assigned Unit of Assessment. |
Durham author of output |
|
6.5.2: Outputs were authored in whole by one or more staff who are or were ineligible to be included in the volume measure for REF 2029. [PLEASE NOTE: This exemption addresses the submission of outputs authored by non-volume contributing staff. Under the submission rules for REF 2029, it is permissible for such outputs to be submitted as part of a unit's submission to REF. This was not the case in REF 2021 and there would have been no expectation or anticipation on the part of non-volume contributing staff that should need to ensure open access compliance] |
Confirmation that author's on the output were ineligible to be included in the volume measure for REF 2029. | Please provide details to explain who the authorship team is, and why each Durham author was not eligible to be included in the volume measure for REF 2029. | Durham author of output |
| (not a formal 'exception', but for information): Output is a conference proceeding, but not within definition (i.e., it does not have an ISSN, or the proceedings are published as part of book series) |
None |
N/A
|
Authors are advised to contact the DRO team if they are unsure if this exception may apply. |
The following exceptions fall into four categories:
Please note, these exceptions only apply to outputs published on or after 1 January 2026. For outputs published before this date, please see the relevant tabs on this guide.
| Exception | Evidence Expected | Example supporting text from author | Who is responsible for identifying |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deposit Exception 8.1.2: It would be unlawful to deposit, or request the deposit of, the output or to otherwise make this available. |
Reasonable and descriptive explanation of difficulties encountered (where lawful to collect and record). Note, that this exception cannot be used where a journal’s open access policy prohibits the article form meeting the REF requirements, or where the inclusion of third party copyright prevents access to an output. These are covered by other exceptions. |
It would be unlawful to deposit this output because… [insert reasons here] NOTE: It is unlikely that this exception will apply to the vast majority of journal articles and conference papers, which will be published and in the public domain in any case. See also exceptions 6.2.2, where the self-archiving permissions granted to an author by a journal do not meet the requirements of REF OA policy, but this was the most appropriate journal for the article to have been published in. |
Durham author of output |
| Deposit Exception 8.1.3: The publication actively disallows open access deposit in a repository and was the most appropriate publication for the output. |
Short explanation confirming that as the author, this journal was the most appropriate venue for publishing your research. Author’s are expected to be aware of the requirements of their funder’s and the REF Open Access policy, and to take these into account alongside other factors in deciding where is the most appropriate venue to publish their research. The choice of where to publish research outputs remains the choice of the author. Guidance on selecting a journal in your subject area, and information on the open access permissions individual journals might offer, can be sought from the library by contacting the open access team through our open access web pages. |
As the author, I was aware of the REF Open Access requirements, but confirm this was the most appropriate journal in which to publish this article. Other options which did meet the REF Open Access policy requirements were considered, but were deemed not to be the most appropriate venue to reach the most appropriate audience for this research. It would be worth outlining the reasons why the journal was selected. |
Durham author of output |
| Deposit Exception 8.1.4: Subject to delay in securing the final peer-reviewed text for deposit - for instance, where a paper has multiple authors. |
Descriptive explanation of difficulties encountered required, and where applicable data held as evidencing use of this exception must respect individual’s privacy. |
The corresponding author of the article ([insert author name], [insert author ORCiD if known]) did not provide me with a copy of the accepted manuscript to deposit in DRO within the required deposit timeframe. [If applicable:] The corresponding author has ensured that this met the REF OA requirements and the output is available from repository [insert repository name], and was deposited there on [insert date]. |
Durham author of output |
| Access Exception 8.2.2: The publication requires an embargo that exceeds the stated maxima and was the most appropriate publication for the output. Outputs will not need to meet the embargo requirements in this case. |
Short explanation confirming that as the author, this journal was the most appropriate venue for publishing your research. Author’s are expected to be aware of the requirements of their funder’s and the REF Open Access policy, and to take these into account alongside other factors in deciding where is the most appropriate venue to publish their research. The choice of where to publish research outputs remains the choice of the author. Guidance on selecting a journal in your subject area, and information on the open access permissions individual journals might offer, can be sought from the library by contacting the open access team through our open access web pages. |
As the author, I was aware of the REF Open Access requirements, but confirm this was the most appropriate journal in which to publish this article. Other options which did meet the REF Open Access policy requirements were considered, but were deemed not to be the most appropriate venue to reach the most appropriate audience for this research. It would be worth outlining the reasons why the journal was selected. |
Durham author of output |
| Access Exception 8.2.3: Third-party content was included for which licenses could not be obtained at a reasonable cost. The output will not need to meet access and/or licensing requirements (as relevant) in this case. |
Descriptive explanation of situation and difficulties encountered, where it is not obvious that the output depends on third-party material. | This output contains third party copyright material. Whilst permission was granted to include this within the published version of the article accessible by subscribers only, permission was not granted for deposit in an open access repository. The inclusion of this third party copyrighted material is fundamental to the understanding of the output, and so provision of access to the article as a whole has not been possible. | Durham author of output |
|
Technical Exception |
Evidence that the author was no longer employed with the University at the point of publication. | This article was published by the journal on [insert date here]. The attributable author was no longer employed by Durham University, their contract of employment having ended on [insert date here]. |
Durham author of output. Employment dates will be determined within the Worktribe REF module. |
| Technical Exception 8.3.3: Outputs were authored in whole by one or more staff who are or were ineligible to be included in the volume measure for REF 2029. The funding bodies have agreed this exception across the publication period for REF 2029 in order to support submission of a wide range of eligible outputs. |
Confirmation that author's on the output were ineligible to be included in the volume measure for REF 2029. | Please provide details to explain who the authorship team is, and why each Durham author was not eligible to be included in the volume measure for REF 2029. | Durham author of output |
| Further Exception 8.4.1: “Other” exception should be used where criteria beyond the control of the higher education institution (HEI) (including but not limited to: personal circumstances of the author, industrial action, closure days and software issues) prevent compliance. If ‘other’ exception is selected, the output will not need to meet the open access criteria (deposit, discovery or access requirements) |
A short written explanation for why the output could not meet the open access requirements at the point of submission to the REF | Please provide details to explain why this output did not meet the requirements. If these are related to any personal or private circumstances, please discuss with the REF Team for your assigned Unit of Assessment. | Durham author of output |
